1 / 16

DEEP BOREHOLE DISPOSAL: AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE MINED ENGINEERED REPOSITORY FOR HIGH-LEVEL WASTES

. . . . . GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL . Near-Surface. Sub-Sea Bed. Mined Repository(= Deep geological disposal). Disused Mine Workings. Deep Boreholes(= Very deep disposal). Emplacement in the Earth's crust with no intent to retrieve. . . Adapted from Chapman

lynne
Download Presentation

DEEP BOREHOLE DISPOSAL: AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE MINED ENGINEERED REPOSITORY FOR HIGH-LEVEL WASTES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. DEEP BOREHOLE DISPOSAL: AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE MINED & ENGINEERED REPOSITORY FOR HIGH-LEVEL WASTES

    2. GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL

    9. Advantages of Deep Boreholes SAFETY COST EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SMALL ‘FOOTPRINT’ SITE AVAILABILITY SECURITY INSENSITIVE to HLW COMPOSITION LONGEVITY EARLY IMPLEMENTATION

    10. SAFETY CASE

    11. LTVDD-1 HEAT-FLOW MODEL Vitrified HLW 1 Container 10 years storage

    13. COST EFFECTIVE (LTVDD-1) 0.5 m Borehole to 4 km = Ł25 - 35 M With up to 50% savings for multi-borehole programme (J. Beswick, 2008) No. of packages per hole = 650 - 700 UK Total HLW containers = 7,250 (2007 UK Inventory, current & future arisings) No. of 4 km holes required = 10 - 11 Approximate cost = Ł210 - Ł330 M (Assuming minimum savings per hole of 15%)

    14. SITE AVAILABILITY Suitable basement underlies much of the continental crust Within 3 km of surface in many places Potentially good site availability Small footprint Waste producers (e.g. NDA, MoD) could already own, & volunteer, suitable sites.

    15. EARLY IMPLEMENTATION Small diameter test drillings 1 – 2 years (Incl. geological & hydrogeological evaluation) Disposal borehole to 4 km ~ 1 year HLW emplacement ~ 2 years Sealing & Backfilling < 1 year Time to first completion ~ 5 – 6 years

    16. Advantages of Deep Boreholes SAFETY COST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SMALL ‘FOOTPRINT’ SITE AVAILABILITY SECURITY INSENSITIVE to HLW COMPOSITION LONGEVITY EARLY IMPLEMENTATION ACCEPTABILITY ?

    17. DBD is an option we can’t afford to ignore for the HLWs to which it is especially suited. It is not a technology that can be dismissed as “immature” requiring decades of development.

More Related