Finland's MASSIVE Underground Megaproject Built for 100,000 Years
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- In 1983, Finland unveiled a bold plan to tackle nuclear power's biggest problem: nuclear waste. Now, four decades later, this plan is being put to the test. Join us as we explore how the Onkalo project-a deep geological repository built over 1,411 feet (430 meters) beneath Olkiluoto Island-is designed to safely store nuclear waste for 100,000 years.
Discover how Finland's innovative approach uses a multi-barrier system involving copper canisters, bentonite clay, and the ancient granite bedrock to secure radioactive waste far from people, animals, and the environment.
We'll delve into the challenges faced during construction, including technical hurdles like groundwater management and seismic considerations, as well as public concerns and opposition.
We'll also compare Finland's strategy with nuclear waste management efforts in other countries like Sweden, France, Canada, and the United States. Is Finland setting the standard for solving nuclear energy's biggest challenge? Watch the video to find out.
What do you think? Has Finland solved the nuclear waste problem, or should we look elsewhere for solutions? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell for more insightful videos on megaprojects and innovative engineering solutions.
#finland #infrastructure #construction #nuclearpower
Do you think Finland’s 100,000-year nuclear waste vault is the best way to handle nuclear waste, or should we be exploring other options?
just invest in the rocket tec and send them to deep space. SpaceX is making the rockets cheaper every year and the payload bigger... who cares if there is more radiation send to lets say to the sun?
Yes
For those who think otherwise: "at least it's a start"
For those who still think otherwise: "barrels at your doorstep, keep them in you closet"
One important detail is that the fuel in Onkalo can be removed 50 or even 400 years later if the need arises for safety or re-use.
Or maybe reused for weapons.
Yeah, have you tried that 400 years somewhere before.🤔
0:54 I am so happy to see that Finnish giraffes and elephants are saved thanks to this project
It might be the fauna that are safe when tings go sauer
Please expand on the specifics of your seemingly sarcastic and somewhat cryptic point of view. I honestly and openly would like to understand what it is you are trying to say. Please also provide an alternate option for the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. It exists and is going to be an issue for many years. Until alternate non polluting forms of energy are realistically able to meet the worlds demand for energy.
@@mpetrino7330 Did you press the timestamp bola provided at the beginning of the post?
7:00 Greenpeace making its usual noise. Their consern is that copper canisters might rust and leak after 1000 years. In that timeframe used uranium may be useful again when we have better reactors.
They also conventionally forget that renewable energy needs backup energy and rare earth mining is worse polluter than nuclear energy.
The other option would be to remain dependent on fossil fuels for energy and likewise to depend on countries that supply them, more importantly in my opinion. Nuclear energy is the best way forward.
We should have specialized reactors for re-using spent nuclear fuel, however, because that is a finite resource as well.
@@herptek SMR reactors can re use the uranium from old "waste", todays reactors only burn few procen't of the fuel, SMR can burn almost all of it!
@@henrioinonen3492 I am only a layman, but as far as I understand another advantage of such small reactors would be that they could work optimally to power smaller and more remote towns with less energy consumption. Having energy production centralized causes inefficiences for rural areas because of the extensive power grid. Remote towns also are the ones most often powered by renewables and in need of compensating energy sources during the fluctuations of productivity of these methods.
I am under impression that SMR:s could also work optimally as auxiliary reactors for larger nuclear power stations, the fuel of which they could also recycle. Last but in my opinion not the least they could also be used as auxiliary power plants in case of disruptions to powerplants or the power grid during natural catastrophes or military crisis.
@@herptek If you run thorium reactor. you can use all uranium isotopes to fuel it. It will burn almost all of the fuel. The result will be basically no uranium/plutonium. But it will send X-rays for 50years. After that you can put it in house walls or pavement.
Somebody thinks copper is going to rust?!? No!!
I commend Finland and Sweden on actually having a plan and moving forward with it. When most other countries who know they have spent fuel storage issues are simply choosing to do nothing about it.
IMHO the following important points are missing in this video:
* Onkalo is *only* for nuclear waste from Finnland. They are not selling it as a service to other countries.
* (as far as I know. This point is unfortunately never clearly mentioned, except in the "Onkalo" documentary movie) Onkalo has *only* the capacity to store the nuclear waste from the 5 *existing* nuclear reactors. F.ex. the cancelled Fennovoima Hanhikivi-1 nuclear reactor project had never aquired a share in Posiva and hence it's waste would not have been stored in Onkalo. This point is also never mentioned when finnish politicians are stating "we need more nuclear reactors".
At 0:53 you can see Local Finnish Fauna tm...
Those pesky giraffes get into my nerves, you rubbing one off on the 2nd floor and then notice one of those looking at you through the window.
USA stores waste on surface in dry cask storages, which is I assume another way to do it, but when Russia is a neighbour, you have to do risk assesments and dig it underground.
Finland's got the geology, a lot stricter environmental protections and a lot less "useless" land, that's all there is to it.
Finland 🎉
The best nuclear waste facility in the world.
Don't forget to factor in the cost to build a facility like the one described when costing any project involving nuclear reactor waste.
😎🇦🇺
thats the hive from resident evil.
Finland chose dwarves on character creation.
Only we Finns have the right to say whether this is right or wrong, because waste is brought from other countries to our bedrock, even if every country could manage its own garbage. The state of Finland and the people of Finland do not receive any significant amounts of money from this for storing other people's waste, which spoils the soil in the area and is a risk if it leaks
I (as a Finn) think that we are hasty with final repository of spent nuclear fuel. I appreciate recycling. And in the other hand there are several research projects going around the world how to harvest energy directly from neutron flux, röntgen and gamma rays. If some of those methods become practical in future, we have already buried our energy source for good.
It's not buried for good. Storage system is build a way that you can retrieve the canisters if needed.
@@simmysims9209yep and santa claus lives in the norhpole
I wonder if they could add some kind of radiation cell to that solution, which would capture energy from the disposed nuclear waste. 🤔
Two futures: one that knows what radioactovity is and one that doesent.
Lets assume the site hasnt been marked in any way above ground.
The one that knows has sensors to figure out what there is once they start digging. Such people are no doubt reasonable enough to not waste money digging through concrete and clay for kilometers on end (they no doubt are following the spiraling tunnel as very little indicates there is something straight down).
The one that doesent know what radiation is, has to dig via hands or rudimentary machines. Assuming the weather, time and manually concealed enterance is found in the first place. Would such a society spend their money digging away clay and concrete? There is nothing of interest to be found for miles on end and they will realize this sooner or later.
If I remember correctly, the site will not be marked in any way just to not attract attention among people who might not know, what a radiation sign or radiation itself mean.
The best and only way is to reuse the nuclear waste as some countrys are planning for, they do not need to dig for new Uranium they have fuel for hundreds or thousands of year...?
They can re-use them later if they get the capacity to use them. Right now they don't, but with this they can store fuel safely until they do.
@@XGD5layer If you read about how they do you understand that is impossible to do when they finished with the copper barriers and bentonit mud they are gone.
@@rickyandersson5203 Not impossible. Inconvenient yes and likely cost prohibitive, but not impossible.
Dude, this video is years out of date
Sounds like a wonderful solution. But ancient Egyptians thought their pyramids wouuld assure complete isolation from the outside. How has that worked out?
The difference is that the Pyramids are above ground where everyone can see them. Nuclear waste repositories are hundreds of meters underground, and once the tunnels are sealed, the only way to get at the waste is to dig the tunnels out again, which would be so expensive that it simply would never happen.
find the documentation about onkalo called "into eternity" there you will see that your concerns have played a role in the project leaders thoughts.
your concerns are very valid. i.e. one of the ideas was is to seal the complex above ground make it look like the environment, unfindable....so they will NOT build a pyramit ontop of it to mark its position.
btw, i worked at one of the powerplants - so my daily commute would lead me past onkalo - there is not much going on above ground, if you would remove the secruity measures and replace the road to it with forest, you would not know it is there.
personally i think the perfect solution does not exist, but the finnish solution is the best there is so far - but only because of the geographical/geological situation finland is in.
Germany doesnt have this nice bedrock formation, so they dump the shit in salt mines in the cheapest possible manner - and then theyre susprised that 2 years later the barrels have rusted through and the shit seeps into groundwater...
You need to take some serious money and use that wisely if you want to be ontop of it. Strangely, thats where the plant operators in other countries are not so enthusiastic, they do like the profits though from the operational lifetime of their plants, but when it needs to be decomissioned they suddenly need tax payes to bail em out or to fix the problem for them....
Important question, and the one that needs a lot more attention even if there is a lot of technical improvement in the storage technics.
The places built like huge and visible monuments of power and wealth that famously got sealed with the wealth of pharaohs inside them?
Yes, this is definitely the same thing, in 6000 years all the records of this place in Finland will say that there is unimaginable wealth hidden within and a group of grave robbers will of course be able to dig all the way down there and successfully extract the waste...
Comparing the 2 as if the waste is going to be extracted and placed in museums take some brain gymnastics out of this world, if something happens that makes all knowledge of this place lost it wont be a problem for much longer than it takes for the waste to become harmless.
This has been thought of and alot of effort and thinking has been put into using symbols that are timeless and universal for indicating danger to the future generations. For example there are combination of skulls etc. and international radioactivity symbols around the facility if I remember correctly.