Roaming the tunnels...

At the entrance of the second shaft, where nuclear waste will be lowered into starting 2030.

Let it be known that this facility was not created from thin air, but that humans built it and lived here. That may not be obvious in millions of years, but it's clear today!

One can get lost underground, but also in the beauty of it all.

Der Moment in dem Ich anfing über die Warnzeichen für langfristige Lagerungen von nuklearen Abfällen zu reden.

„Vielleicht haben Sie das ja schon Mal gesehen”

Ascending from hell back to the overworld

Once back up, the second conference ensued. However, with less energy due to already being 6 hours underground, both sides began throwing some harsh realities at one another, without trying to uphold some nice facade. The good food they made in the hopes of us being more friendly towards them helped, though.

If you take a look at that second image, the federal company for radioactive waste disposal is showing the two different simulations regarding the longevity of their facility. In the case of sweet water entering the site, it could only last 300,000 years, with worst case conditions applied (nuclear waste containers vanishing into thin air, water not being obstructed, etc.), but with salt water it may take over a million years to reach and bring the radioactive material above ground. Of course, all of those numbers are without any human element. At a specific point in time someone raised the question of a foreign army occupying Konrad in the case of war, the owners brushed it off as something they can't plan for. While that's true, given the Russian army once occupied a nuclear power plant, it's not unrealistic to also strategically take control of such a facility, especially since for forty years half of Germany's nuclear waste will be carried here.

Additionally, the question of the accuracy of the simulation of their system was asked by a representative of the AG Konrad, an activist group that's been protesting against their town being turned into a nuclear waste storage facility for over 40 years. That's another question Victor Perli raised: the surrounding water streams do not yet have the required approval (wasserrechtliche Zulassung der Gebinde).

A representative responded that, despite trying to get such an approval in the past, she doesn't believe the nuclear facility needs to have it.

“We don't need a permit for under water regulation. We do something completely different from the agricultural facilities these laws were designed for. We cannot take on a product responsibility for 100 years or more. Usually, these permits are only for about 10 years. Accountability for a time period we are planning with isn't something the German law accounts for.”

We concede. However, the activists in the room are currently still suing due to their decision to disregard the law when it comes to water regulation.

The other activist raises the point that 3D seismic scans were never made before putting all trust into this facility. The representative of the facility responds that their method of drilling holes and taking samples in addition to 2D seismic was far more accurate than 3D seismic could be. She calls the process “raw material exploration”. The conversation gets heated and technical. They concede, and admit mistakes in the past. The representative of Konrad says that by modern standards, this facility would never be chosen for long term nuclear waste storage.

They are keeping the security up to the newest standards, despite legally not being required to.

A conversation about the exact amount of nuclear waste that needs to be stored is started. Apparently, old GDR nuclear reactors still haven't been fully cleaned yet, so the amount of waste they may produce are incredibly shaky and rough estimates. Only one of all of Germany's nuclear reactors have actually been dismantled. The others are in that process. The problem of the Asse II, a failed long term nuclear waste storage facility that leaked radioactive material to the outside, which is close by and was also managed by the same organization as Konrad, was raised. The question whether all nuclear waste there can be “scraped off” is raised by the Konrad representatives, they don't have high hopes for that.

A Microsoft teams notification pops up on the Laptop of the person with the presentation open, I could not read the message, but it was sent into a group with the name “Handling of the lawsuit”, which I found hilarious.

They said storing nuclear waste so far underground like we do was already an 'overkill', which I very much disagree with, considering the only reason nuclear waste isn't touched by permafrost during a glacier period is because it's buried this deep. Additionally, the entirety of their “we can't be held responsible for future generations” argument relied on this being stored so deep underground.

Sweden's nuclear waste storage facility is only 200 meters deep. France's is 500 meters below the surface of the earth. The one in South Africa is 300 meters deep. The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxemburg do not have any area that's viable for long term nuclear waste storage. Slovenia and Croatia built their nuclear reactors together, so they also deal with nuclear waste together.

The question is raised that, given the EU's usual “regulatory diligence” (a more demeaning German word was used), why is there no regulation for this? Or a European solution?

We were told that there are seven international definitions of nuclear waste, and they all stem from the different historical ways nuclear power plants were created. France's nuclear waste problem is glass glazed waste, while Germany has fuel rods. We require completely different storage facilities, despite being neighbors. Despite all this, we are reminded that high-tier nuclear waste is not stored here, but are shown an image of the glass molds that they are currently stored in.

The EU Commission does have a working group trying to figure out what requirements an international long term storage facility must have, yet that's in the earliest stages as can be and may lead nowhere.

Just for jokes, the question of chemically reprocessing nuclear waste, like the AfD (the German fascist party) suggests, is asked. The representative responds that she personally witnessed such a reprocessing in Karlsruhe, and not only is it an incredibly complex process for a miniscule amount of radioactive material, but it's always connected to the use of lots of toxins, which isn't helpful for the environment or world either. Additionally, these facilities that people often hear of in highly speculative, tech-optimist “newspapers”, that supposedly show facilities in Russia or China capable of reprocessing highly radioactive material, are just “Power-Point facilities” and don't exist in the real world. They are concepts that are interesting, but hold no economic rational, and hence such proposals can't be taken seriously, as they are more science fiction than currently existing technology. They cannot be planned with.

The final argument the representatives of this long term nuclear waste storage facility made in quite an exhausted and worried tone, was that regulations change all the time. When they started conceptualizing the old mine Konrad to store nuclear waste, it was up to the best standards in terms of security and location. Searching for a new facility by today's standards, risks, in forty years down the line, those standards changing this dramatically once again, and hence still not having anywhere to store nuclear waste, even if everything is restarted.

To this I responded that we are planning on building something that's supposed to exist for millions of years and hence needs an ideal location, so why the rush?

They said storing nuclear waste so far underground like we do was already an 'overkill', which I very much disagree with, considering the only reason nuclear waste isn't touched by permafrost during a glacier period is because it's buried this deep. Additionally, the entirety of their “we can't be held responsible for future generations” argument relied on this being stored so deep underground.

Sweden's nuclear waste storage facility is only 200 meters deep. France's is 500 meters below the surface of the earth. The one in South Africa is 300 meters deep. The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxemburg do not have any area that's viable for long term nuclear waste storage. Slovenia and Croatia built their nuclear reactors together, so they also deal with nuclear waste together.

The question is raised that, given the EU's usual “regulatory diligence” (a more demeaning German word was used), why is there no regulation for this? Or a European solution?

We were told that there are seven international definitions of nuclear waste, and they all stem from the different historical ways nuclear power plants were created. France's nuclear waste problem is glass glazed waste, while Germany has fuel rods. We require completely different storage facilities, despite being neighbors. Despite all this, we are reminded that high-tier nuclear waste is not stored here, but are shown an image of the glass molds that they are currently stored in.

The EU Commission does have a working group trying to figure out what requirements an international long term storage facility must have, yet that's in the earliest stages as can be and may lead nowhere.

Just for jokes, the question of chemically reprocessing nuclear waste, like the AfD (the German fascist party) suggests, is asked. The representative responds that she personally witnessed such a reprocessing in Karlsruhe, and not only is it an incredibly complex process for a miniscule amount of radioactive material, but it's always connected to the use of lots of toxins, which isn't helpful for the environment or world either. Additionally, these facilities that people often hear of in highly speculative, tech-optimist “newspapers”, that supposedly show facilities in Russia or China capable of reprocessing highly radioactive material, are just “Power-Point facilities” and don't exist in the real world. They are concepts that are interesting, but hold no economic rational, and hence such proposals can't be taken seriously, as they are more science fiction than currently existing technology. They cannot be planned with.

The final argument the representatives of this long term nuclear waste storage facility made in quite an exhausted and worried tone, was that regulations change all the time. When they started conceptualizing the old mine Konrad to store nuclear waste, it was up to the best standards in terms of security and location. Searching for a new facility by today's standards, risks, in forty years down the line, those standards changing this dramatically once again, and hence still not having anywhere to store nuclear waste, even if everything is restarted.

To this I responded that we are planning on building something that's supposed to exist for millions of years and hence needs an ideal location, so why the rush?

@ErikUden sag Ma, warum schreibst du das meiste in Englisch? Ist das deine Muttersprache? Meine englischkenntnisse sind schlecht. Das ginge ja, wenn der angebotene Übersetzer was taugen würde. Der ist aber wirklich mies.