La crise de l’automobile allemande a révélé l’attachement profond du pays à la maîtrise du métal, à la combustion et au sport automobile. Une culture mise à mal par le véhicule moderne, dominé par le logiciel, la batterie et la conduite autonome.
We have known good locations in Germany that could be used. I only mention that location because a good amount of the sites are there. This all being said an EU policy based approach would be better than just Germany.
This is the study that shows the good locations in Germany.
Thanks for the study. But this does not support your claim. This is just their interim report which only includes sub-areas and not final locations. They will propose five to ten regions by the end of 2027, which will then be analyzed in more detail and only then a final recommendation is given. These are simply the best regions, not necessarily those that perfectly meet all criteria. And as you can see in the report none of the listed sub-areas meet all criteria. This means that the recommendation is very likely a compromise. With nuclear waste. Just great!
Also take a look at this section:
Section 23 para. 5 no. 5 StandAG, preservation of the barrier effect:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the
effective containment zone, in particular on compliance with the geoscientific minimum
requirements for hydraulic conductivity of the rock, thickness and expanse of the effec-
tive containment zone over a period of one million years.
Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect
appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been
satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases,
until such time as relevant data becomes available.
This references criterion 5. So every time you see “green” indicators, its possible that we don’t have any data on this.
So no, sorry. We don’t have a safe storage location right now. We just have ones, that are better than others. So adding even more waste? No thanks.
Fun fact: No European country has a final waste site at the moment, except Finland. What if no one is able to build one? Should we send everything to Finland? I don’t think their criteria included this space requirement. But it won’t even come to that, as they most likely simply have no desire to deal with the nuclear waste of all of Europe.
But that section clearly supports my claim? All that section says is that there must not be anything that casts doubt on the integrity of the containment zone.
Given that logically you can’t logically prove a negative this seems like the strongest sound phrasing of the validity.
Section 23 para. 5 no. 5 StandAG, preservation of the barrier effect:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zone, in particular on compliance with the geoscientific minimum requirements for hydraulic conductivity of the rock, thickness and expanse of the effec- tive containment zone over a period of one million years.
Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.
Again this supports my claim:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zone
You can’t prove a negative thus the strongest approach that could be taken is:
Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered notto have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.
As for storing everything in Finland. Yes I believe an EU led agenda to store everything in an EU funded, supported and expanded Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository would be the best outcome. The second best would be storage at the nation state level.
This all might be politically difficult but outside of that it is doable.
I do not think all European countries should have a long term storage plan. I think an EU lead central approach would be better.
We have known good locations in Germany that could be used. I only mention that location because a good amount of the sites are there. This all being said an EU policy based approach would be better than just Germany.
This is the study that shows the good locations in Germany.
https://www.bge.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Standortsuche/Wesentliche_Unterlagen/Zwischenbericht_Teilgebiete/Zwischenbericht_Teilgebiete_-_Englische_Fassung_barrierefrei.pdf
Thanks for the study. But this does not support your claim. This is just their interim report which only includes sub-areas and not final locations. They will propose five to ten regions by the end of 2027, which will then be analyzed in more detail and only then a final recommendation is given. These are simply the best regions, not necessarily those that perfectly meet all criteria. And as you can see in the report none of the listed sub-areas meet all criteria. This means that the recommendation is very likely a compromise. With nuclear waste. Just great! Also take a look at this section:
This references criterion 5. So every time you see “green” indicators, its possible that we don’t have any data on this.
So no, sorry. We don’t have a safe storage location right now. We just have ones, that are better than others. So adding even more waste? No thanks.
Fun fact: No European country has a final waste site at the moment, except Finland. What if no one is able to build one? Should we send everything to Finland? I don’t think their criteria included this space requirement. But it won’t even come to that, as they most likely simply have no desire to deal with the nuclear waste of all of Europe.
But that section clearly supports my claim? All that section says is that there must not be anything that casts doubt on the integrity of the containment zone.
Given that logically you can’t logically prove a negative this seems like the strongest sound phrasing of the validity.
Again this supports my claim:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zoneYou can’t prove a negative thus the strongest approach that could be taken is:
Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.As for storing everything in Finland. Yes I believe an EU led agenda to store everything in an EU funded, supported and expanded Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository would be the best outcome. The second best would be storage at the nation state level.
This all might be politically difficult but outside of that it is doable.
I do not think all European countries should have a long term storage plan. I think an EU lead central approach would be better.