should we be a Nuke dumping ground

[hughie]

It seems we are destined to be a dumping ground for nuke waste

[Waldo]

We make it, we have to put it somewhere.

[jmk89]

Also
- we tend to be responsible when there are safety issues, others are not so safety conscious so our nuclear dump is likely to be well run
- we can put the stuff where it will be very hard for other people to get hold of it to misuse it
- Australia is geologically much more stable than other continents

[hughie]

it ain't going smoothly

Nuke dump nomination process divisive: Greens - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/13/2871117.htm?section=justin)

[mikm]

Should we be a nuke dumping ground (I read that as taking on the waste of others as well as our own)? I think not.

Should be responsible for and safely (if actually possible to clearly define the term in this context) dispose of our own waste? Absolutely.

Should we initiate a large scale increase in the amount of nucular (channelling George Dubbya :D) waste we have to dispose of by power generation? Not if I was dictator.

Some amount of radioactive waste is un-avoidable (medicine, research etc) but we don't have the right to make future generations stewards of our problems when we're gone. Instead of paying handsomely to build reactors and paying again to dispose of the waste, I'd rather sink money into renewable research and cleaning up coal.

[fxst]

we sell it to others so we shouldn't say no to storing it. We will need more power if the PM's dream of 35mil pop is anything to go by and nuke is the answer. Its safe and long lasting europe doen't have a prob with it if they did they would not be using it. Green solutions are not sustainable as when the extra power is needed its either no wind or too much wind and solar ??what do you do in the dark?
Cheers
Pete

[woodnut]

Stick it Melbourne, it could do with a bit of a boost!

[mikm]

I don't think so, Pete.

we sell it to others
I don't think we should be selling Uranium - It's only a matter of time before U sourced from here is used in a dirty bomb here or elsewhere.

so we shouldn't say no to storing it
Going by that rationale, I'm responsible for the safe removal and long term storage/disposal of a car (or anything else for that matter) owned by somebody else just because they bought it off me at some point in the past?

We will need more power if the PM's dream of 35mil pop is anything to go by
I agree with you there :wink:. Not convinced about 35 M people either. Water is at least as big a problem as power.

and nuke is the answer.
Nuke is one answer. Even with a pop that size, alternatives exist.

Its safe
Well, cars are safe too; until you have an accident. Previous residents of Chernobyl may have something to say here.

and long lasting
Yep, that'd be my problem with it. (Although I know that's not the context you meant)

europe doen't have a prob with it if they did they would not be using it.
In many places, Europe has to use it. They don't use nuclear power just for the fun of it.

Green solutions are not sustainable as when the extra power is needed its either no wind or too much wind and solar ??what do you do in the dark?
This is probably where we diverge the most, Pete. A favourite technique of the pro-nuke set is to discuss the shortcomings of one alternative technology or another, in isolation, vs the constant supply from a reactor. Sure, solar on their (several types) own, or even solar and wind aren't gonna cut it when we want guaranteed continuous generation, but that's not the full story. Start accumulating the outputs of solar, wind, hydro, biomass, natural gas, geothermal, etc (promising system on the new inventors this week, too) and constant supply begins to look very likely.

Hmmm. At this point, just as I'm about to hit "Submit Reply", it occurs to me that I'm really moving off topic from the original post now, but buggrit, here it is anyway.:)

[Waldo]

we sell it to others so we shouldn't say no to storing it. We will need more power if the PM's dream of 35mil pop is anything to go by and nuke is the answer. Its safe and long lasting europe doen't have a prob with it if they did they would not be using it.
Cheers
Pete

:2tsup: All the hype and hysteria of not in my 'backyard' it has to go somewhere, and it wouldn't worry me if it was in mine - be it storage or a plant. Like the desalination plant down here or dams, everyone agrees we need to make power or catch water but no-one wants them near them. :? A year or so ago now there were reports on programmes such as Quantum about Chinese n/power plants - pebble something or other, the safest in the world and China is putting them up by the bucket load - but you don't hear very long of the good things, only the negative, or perceived negative.

And what does nuclear power put in the atmosphere? Squat.

[China]

We should take and store for it a price a very big price Australia could be the next dubai, and while we are are it we should be building Nuclear power stations, and stop prttling on about sola and wind power which will never cut it, wind power is one of the least effcient ways to generate power, sola power works, so long as you have enough space to build the huge arrays that are required

[mikm]

It's all about risk management to me. I think the risks associated with responsible and financially solvent nations running reactors are, to me at least (I suspect the aforementioned Chernobylites are likely to disagree), acceptably low, but I think waste disposal is a very different kettle of fish. Designing and building a safe fission reactor is a walk in the park compared to guaranteeing a containment structure/system for the required multiples of hundreds of thousands of years to achieve safety.
Also, estimates (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html) have been made predicting useful Uranium reserves to run out in 85 years or so at the 2004 rate of electricity production. With the impressive rate of construction of Chinese reactors, we'll easily run out before then unless major improvements are made to reactor efficiency.
I don't think the future penalty is worth only 100 years or so of carbon free power. Bring on fusion, I say.

[Waldo]

Bring on fusion, I say.

:2tsup: But isn't that pie in the sky stuff like clean coal for years to come yet?

[mikm]

But isn't that pie in the sky stuff like clean coal for years to come yet?

Yeah, I don't imagine we'll see fusion for 50 years or more, unfortunately. Tying back to the original question: being a waste dump for fusion waste could be interesting. A very short half-life (compared to fission waste) apparently means safety after about 300 years (instead of a million or so) which could be commercial opportunity for Aus once we run out of resources to sell off.

[Vernonv]

Also, estimates (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html) have been made predicting useful Uranium reserves to run out in 85 years or so at the 2004 rate of electricity production.

Yeah, I don't imagine we'll see fusion for 50 years or more, unfortunately.

:2tsup:Sounds like a plan. Use fission until we develop fusion, then switch.

[elkangorito]

Nuclear Energy is the most dangerous discovery of all time!
Not only using it is incedibly risky but the disposal of the waste is a huge proble.

As far as I know, everybody is very concerned about the lives of their grandchildren...but 'concern' stops right there with 'grandchildren'! The attitude seems to be, "Whilst I'm alive, I'll 'care' for people. When I'm dead, they're on their own."
If this is how some people think, why don't they simply 'not care' about anything or anybody? The reason why they don't do this is because that they will 'lose face' (lose brownie points) if they don't 'appear' to be 'caring folk' whilst they are living.

Nuclear waste takes a very long time to decompose (to something 'safe'). A nuclear power station may seem to be the 'answer' for the current global energy problem but as usual, people only think about 'their next generation' & not for anybody else (future generations).

There is, however, a simpler & safer solution to the world's energy problem, although most of you will not like to hear it.
The solution is to reduce the number of people on the planet & also to reduce this idiotic thing known as 'consumerism'.

Flame on.

[hughie]

There is, however, a simpler & safer solution to the world's energy problem, although most of you will not like to hear it.
The solution is to reduce the number of people on the planet & also to reduce this idiotic thing known as 'consumerism'.


...............and who chooses the cull


..................and consumerism is what we all do, its called living, we all consume in order to live

[Harry72]

Economically it may end up being an advantage, current reactors only burn a small percentage potential of energy from uranium... we sell it back to them again once better reactor technology is developed and implemented.
Dr Carl was on JJJ the other day talking about

[Sebastiaan56]

Buckminster Fuller wrote a great book called "Critical Path". One of his points was that we need to look after our waste dumps as they will be resource mines in the future as technology improves and we can get more of the rare metals etc out of them. Its happening in a small way with some methane recovery from some landfills. The only problem is the interim pollution of things like water tables from leachate. There will come a time when they will be mined for polymers and metals, particularly copper. It makes a low level nuke dump an interesting investment.

[rsser]

A bit OT but I've read that almost all of our landfill is compostable or recyclable, but that's prevented at the moment by the small proportion of toxic stuff in the mix.

[hughie]

]A bit OT but I've read that almost all of our landfill is compostable or recyclable, but that's prevented at the moment by the small proportion of toxic stuff in the mix.


here you go full circle.

http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/17/174