Camp Century: Will Melting Uncover Greenland’s Toxic Nuclear City?

January 5, 2019

45 Responses to “Camp Century: Will Melting Uncover Greenland’s Toxic Nuclear City?”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    WHOA—-grab your mouse and run! Some anti-nuke dittohead group has hijacked the Crock website! Peter! Hole up somewhere safe until we can send a SWAT team to rescue you.

    Camp Century is a “Toxic NUCLEAR City”? ROTFLMAO! The PM-2 reactor installed at Camp Century was a tiny thing, and it was removed when the camp was abandoned. All that remains is some relatively low-level nuclear waste like coolant water—-some 47,000 gallons (not even enough to fill two of the ubiquitous 30,000 DOT-111 tank cars that are used to transport our petroleum products everywhere).

    Yep, there were some chemically toxic things buried there—-but some small fraction of what the Camp Fire in CA released into an area where people actually live—-like North America? Not a field of ice that won’t melt for another 80 years or more. We have much bigger fish frying in places closer to home without stirring up the ignorant.

    (Peter!….stay low and keep quiet…..we’re coming to save you!)

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Look at all the anti-nuke lemmings and their thumbs down for this comment. It’s saddening to see that some people who are smart enough to have found Crock show such stupidity when it comes to understanding how we should reduce carbon emissions.

  2. redskylite Says:

    Informative section in Wikipedia on this abandoned cold war site . . .

    Seems will be disruptive to local Arctic ecosystems next century, which is approaching exceedingly fast. Lets get the carbon balance balance once more, and hope man’s appreciation of the future improves.

    When the camp was decommissioned in 1967, its infrastructure and waste were abandoned under the assumption they would be entombed forever by perpetual snowfall. A 2016 study found that the portion of the ice sheet covering Camp Century will start to melt by the year 2100, if current trends continue. When the ice melts, the camp’s infrastructure, as well as any remaining biological, chemical and radioactive waste, will re-enter the environment and potentially disrupt nearby ecosystems.

  3. Sir Charles Says:

    Foreffa safe…

    The Germans though in the 1980s the old salt mine Asse would be safe “for hundreds of thousands of years” for burying their nuclear waste. Ground water started leaking in shortly after. Recovering that stuff would make up a two digit billion sum. So they just keep on “monitoring” it now.

  4. Sir Charles Says:

    With about 60% capacity factor, 16 by 20 (320) modern offshore wind turbines can replace a nuke. Covering an area of some 200 square miles you should just pay attention when you’re getting near them with your rubber boat during a hurricane.

    Safer than nuclear. Cheaper than nuclear. Faster installed than nuclear. Even a smaller carbon footprint than nuclear. And of course not that toxic legacy like radiation, waste, decommission etc.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Don’t forget how well wind power DOESN’T work when the wind isn’t blowing or it’s blowing so hard that they have to shut down. We need ALL kinds of carbon-free energy, and so far nukes provide it most reliably and safely, and in large quantities from small footprints that are easily connected to the grid. Stop being contrary for contrariness’ sake and look at the science.

    • J4Zonian Says:

      Offshore wind is getting up to 65% capacity factor now for significant parts of the year, will likely do it permanently with the introduction of GE’s 12MW Haliade-X turbine and larger ones this year and next, as it moves farther out from shore to stronger, steadier winds. It’s likely to continue to increase for a while. (What happened to those 50MW blades that were to be tested last summer?) Covering people’s needs can also be helped by mixing with complementary solar, batteries, and especially dispatchable renewables like 24/7 solar thermal, geothermal, Annual Cycle Energy Systems and other clothesline paradox energies, etc.

      Distributed generation is also crucial–in the Americas, offshore wind on both coasts can add 2 time zones to help flatten the duck. And it would be crazy to try to make this transition without demand response and huge efficiency measures, as well as simply living wiser, less wasteful lives. (Some of that–changes in the landscape, eg–will take a generation or more.)

      The US wastes 85% of the energy it uses, and 40% of the food it grows. That’s not even counting the energy it wastes on trivial and destructive things. If we live wisely, we can replace that food with no food at all while we feed everyone better, and replace that nuke with no generation at all. Equalizing substantially politically and economically will make that possible, and doing it will make the survival of civilization possible, which might even motivate society enough to do it.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “The US wastes 85% of the energy it uses”, says Jeffy.

        Really? Where did that “alternate fact” come from? You’re “speeding” again Jeffy—-slow it down.

        • Sir Charles Says:

          That grey stuff, called “rejected”.

          Add energy inefficiency and you come to that value.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Too bad Chucky doesn’t have more “grey stuff” in his cranium—-maybe if he scooped out some of that Guinness-soaked sawdust there’d be room.

            Energy inefficiency is already included in the (lighter) grey stuff, Chucky. If things became more efficient, the number in the darker grey stuff would increase and the lighter number would decrease. It has something to do with conservation of energy, a topic you’ll cover if you ever study science.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            I think your mum didn’t pay attention when it came to biology, grumpo. Since when does the utility take account for the inefficiency of your light bulb? That light grey stuff coming out of the utility (electricity generation) accounts ONLY for the losses at the plant and in the grid.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            ?That light grey stuff coming out of the utility (electricity generation) accounts ONLY for the losses at the plant and in the grid”

            ONLY? Really? READ THE SMALL PRINT under the graph, Chucky (or get someone to read it to you and explain the big words). Moran!

          • Sir Charles Says:

            An incandescent light bulb has an efficiency of maybe 2.5%. 97.5% of your the electricity is being transformed into heat, 2.5% into light. LEDs have an efficiency of 20-25%, fluorescent light tubes about 12-15%…

          • dumboldguy Says:


    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      As I’ve droned before, the beauty of wind and solar is that they can be used in many places where traditional steam turbine power plants are too unwieldy: islands, deserts, odd-shaped urban brown sites, interspersed with agriculture, covered school parking lots, etc. Nukes require too much up-front planning to site their large, secure concrete footprints, and humongous chunks of committed capital to compete for investors’ money if they can get a quicker ROI on slab battery development or wind or solar farms.

      In the case of existing nuclear plants, I see no need to prematurely decommission them unless they start shutting down too often due to overwarm cooling water, flooding, etc.

      BTW, China hopes to have a “dry nuke” prototype by 2020 for use in the extensive water-poor regions in the country.

  5. Sir Charles Says:

    And if you wanna go big, 130 of those boys can replace a nuke:

  6. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    Large amounts of money and effort, if not a lot of brain power, invested in Greenland, after half a century, to investigate a debris site with less contaminants than a small municipality garbage tip. What thousands of tons of toxic waste? Side issue, water itself is not in any way radioactive. The waste is in the effort that could have been more usefully applied than to make a propaganda clip of fear and innuendo. The anti nuke dogma is becoming more of an impediment to STW than denyarism.

  7. redskylite Says:

    Again this blog has strayed into a nuclear vs,. renewable discussion, that is not what the topic is about at all. Obviously we need both sources to get our carbon balance back.

    This is about impeding contamination due to warming, and the study invoked by Denmark suggests that there are indeed future concerns for the Arctic region.

    Not only in the Arctic either, unless you think that the academics that studied the sites are pesky activists wanting to waste public money, in line with what seems to be the current government of the U.S’s philosophy .

    So stop trying to change the subject away from the topic, and if you think there is no danger then please post positive respectable links to investigations. Thank you.

    This dome in the Pacific houses tons of radioactive waste – and it’s leaking

    The Runit Dome in the Marshall Islands is a hulking legacy of years of US nuclear testing. Now locals and scientists are warning that rising sea levels caused by climate change could cause 111,000 cubic yards of debris to spill into the ocean

    • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

      Nuclear bomb sites and their associated crap are terrible, from the past, are not going away and have no relevance to stopping AGW. These are rad (woopsie, keep it) herrings like those pesky activists wasting public money on something that might cause a problem (poison a krill ) and can do absolutely nothing about. Except present a paper forgotten long before 80 years have past. Seriously, Dark Snow could use those funds USEFULLY. Seriously! The anti nuke dogma is dangerous and blocking an important part of the solution. Responsible link, James Hansen.

      • redskylite Says:

        What an Earth are you talking about BJS?, these things happened in my lifetime (I’m ashamed to say) and is very relevant to today. We left crap buried and now the change in climate is unearthing them. Again you are confusing this with anti nuke. The crap we left is a big risk today and has nothing to do with anti nuke at all. I tell you we need to think of the legacy we are leaving to our children and children’s children. Buried and potentially dangerous junk is not something we should want to leave to them.

        • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

          Redskybright, do not feel ashamed that the world became deep in shit and poisons during our lifetime. A world population did it, some with more culpability than others. Cleaning it up is a great idea with uncountable sites less trivial than this one. A lot more ‘practical also. This one is so trivial that it requires the bogey man of radiation to justify the whole boondoggle and is anti nuke propaganda. Actually it is not a battle between renewable s and nukes, it is the ideology that only renewable s are acceptable and to hell with facts and the world.
          Note, everything is radioactive including thee and me! If any extra nasties were left behind, and if (OK when) the ice melts they will most likely degraded to near background level.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      This blog has not strayed into a nuclear vs,. renewable discussion, since the antinukes refuse to “discuss” any FACTS and just keep blindly ignoring the truth about “safe, clean, reliable, low carbon” sources of power.

      Air pollution from burning fossil fuels kills millions of people EVERY year, and the CO2 buildup is going to kill the entire planet. Radioactive contamination hasn’t killed as many people in 7+ decades as die in ONE DAY from burning fossil fuels.

      As for the Runit dome, rising sea level is NOT going to wash away those massive pieces of concrete and the contaminated soil below, much of which had been mixed with concrete. Yes, lots of long-lived plutonium there, and it’s leaking, but it’s not the “chicken little” situation the propagandists would make it out to be. There’s a lot of highly technical info available, but the Wiki is simplest and best.

      Fukushima is of more concern, and the Camp Century “problem” is laughable in comparison.

      (And as for our resident troll Chucky, we will have to wait and see what he’s really up to with all his OT maundering—-I suspect it will become clearer as we approach the next election))

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Err. See what, Chucky? Your latest Gish Gallop of OT bullshit? More stuff you don’t really understand?

          I will repeat—-(And as for our resident troll Chucky, we will have to wait and see what he’s really up to with all his OT maundering—-I suspect it will become clearer as we approach the next election).

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Why? You think I’m jumping out the magic cylinder and run for US President? LOL! Not to worry, grumpo, I can’t, I won’t, and I would be anything but in the mood for. Too many grumpies in the land of old men.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Where have you been, Chucky? Your inane posting had declined for a while, but now you’re back like a good little narcissist, striking back at me for comments made neatly THREE weeks ago? On vacation? Skiing at Poiana Braşov? Getting some troll retraining in light of the impacts of the shutdown?

            But I DO thank you for the assurance that you wont be running for president—-we already have one narcissistic asshole occupying that position, and don’t need an even sicker one there.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: