 Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me. |
Forum Index : Off topic archive. : Nuclear Waist storeage in Oz
| Author | Message | ||||
Gizmo Admin Group  Joined: 05/06/2004 Location: AustraliaPosts: 5019 |
Bob Hawk ( ex Prime Minister ) was on the TV last night talking about his new proposal for the storage of nuclear waist in the Australian desert. He is talking about building facilities to store ALL of the global nuclear waist, not just Australia's. At first I thought "Bugger OFF!". We don’t use nuclear power in Oz, and only have small amounts of medical/research waist. To me nuclear power is the most polluting and dangerous form of energy generation in use. Coal/Gas/Oil power stations produce huge amounts of CO2 emissions, etc. But these are "recycled" by the atmosphere and plant life. If we stopped burning fossil fuels today, the earth would recover in a few decades. However the waist product from nuclear plants is highly toxic and dangerous for thousands of years! And they call it a clean energy? But over the course of the interview with Bob, I changed my mind. Looking at the facts, Australia is by far the oldest country on the planet, we have the most stable bedrock structure, and no fault lines. We have millions of square miles of desert. We also mine and sell most of the worlds uranium ore. If we set up a facility to take the global nuclear waist, it would mean it was stored in a safe remote location ( not in rusting barrels at the bottom of the English channel, good on ya Europe! ). If all the spent fuel was stored in ONE place, it would be easy to keep secure and out of the hands of terrorists. And Australia could make a lot of money from this. Don’t get me wrong, I hate nuclear power and weapons, there is something very evil about it. But Bob said we need to think globally. If we store it here, it may be in our back yard, but it is safe there. If we don’t store it in Australia, it will be spread in different locations around the planet, and not all will be safe. The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is right now. JAQ |
||||
| MrBungle Newbie  Joined: 07/10/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 34 |
Hi Giz I didn't see Hawkie on TV, but I agree with what your saying. However, we won't have the market to ourselves. I saw a doco a few months ago, I think on it was on 2, about Sweden's role in Nuclear power. The show basicaly covered how the Swede populace were deadset against the idea of Nuclear power, roits, protests etc etc, how the government went ahead anyway(as they do), and how now, decades later, the population don't mind, and even agree with Nuclear power. Many of these people live right next door to the stations. There was also a little on the use of offshore wind turbines and how they can't see any immediate future in wind. [When I was in Sweden, I saw these in the channel between Sweden and Denmark. I also saw dozens of huge wind turbines inland, north of Malmo, west of Lund.) The real interesting part of the show though, was about Swedens dedication to finding a safe storage method for the past and future waste products. Since they started using nuclear power, all the waste material has been stored in the cooling ponds at the stations while the government funded a massive project to safely bury the waste. Apparently Sweden, and the rest of scandanavia, is sitting on one hugely massively giganticaly huge(big!) single solid granite rock, and the swedes have drilled a rediculously deep tunnel(I can't remember how deep, but deep enough to make me muck my underwear, about 5km down or something) which then levels out to provide dozens of branch tunnels which will be the storage area's. They have also trialed storage containers. To the best of my memory, they've determined the best containers are sealed solid copper(from Australia I guess) or some alloy of copper, because they resist corrosion and conduct heat so well. Containers will be grouped together in mini cooling pools that float on an anti earthquake bed, even though its not an earthquake active region. these anti-shake pool thingies are then sealed into that section of the tunnel, and then the rest of the tunnel is ready to accept the next bed, which will also be sealed and so on. Eventually, when all the tunnelette's(?!) are filled the entire tunnel is filled to the surface with concrete. It's a massive scheme, I was well impressed, especialy when I heard they've been working on it for x decades at x cost to the government and its people, and it's only a SIMULATION TUNNEL!! sheesh. They realy do seem to want to get this right. Compare that to most other countries, including the US, and their practice of using 44 gallon drums burried in concrete 20 metres down. We are 20 years behind atleast, and thats if we start tomorrow. Simo |
||||
Storm Regular Member  Joined: 12/09/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 43 |
I think it would be great to be to be able to grow our own fuels, things like ethanol, biodeisels, ect would open new farming industries, keep the money that flows out overseas to oil barons (although our economists would find some other way to export the savings) still be better to grow it than dig it and no 1000year waste problems that our children will be disgusted by A year ago unleaded was around 85c-l nobody would have paid $1.40-l a year ago it probablywould have cost $1.40-l for Biofuel Now petrol's about $1.40 and consumers dont have a choice but to pay and everyones starting to get used to it, why couldn't our advanced society transfer to renewable fuels pay the $1.40 1year earlier, everyone would get used to it, the economy would grow very large as Hawkie wants, motorists would feel better with where it comes from. Virtually anything that can be turned into sugars can be used for ethanol, think about all the garbage the supermarkets and restaurants throw away (you know the food they wont give to bums just in case a court case arises) could be used, probably half the dump could be converted to alcohols instead of compost. (canola, sugarcane, wheat, corn, potatoes etc....the list goes on) My two bobs anyways! |
||||
Chris Senior Member  Joined: 12/09/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 146 |
Is nuclear waste still radioactive and highly dangerous? If thats the case wouldnt it mean that Australia would become a giant nuclear bomb just waiting to be blown up.  |
||||
| dwyer Guru  Joined: 19/09/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 573 |
hi Is nuclear waste still radioactive and highly dangerous? ian
|
||||
| Gizmo Admin Group Joined: 05/06/2004 Location: AustraliaPosts: 5019 |
Nah. The waist is pretty well stuffed as far as weapon use. Weapons grade plutonium is a highly processed material. The spent fuel rods from a reactor have lost all their punch. But they could be used for "dirty bombs". A dirty bomb is a mixture of spent fuel and an explosive. Once detonated, the radioactive material is spread around a large area, covering it in radioactive dust. So if a dirty bomb were detonated in the middle of a large city, there would only be a dozen or so deaths, but several city blocks would be covered in radioactive waist. You couldn't live there for hundreds of years. The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is right now. JAQ |
||||
solarmike Newbie Joined: 14/11/2005 Location: CanadaPosts: 26 |
|
||||
| Chris Senior Member Joined: 12/09/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 146 |
Theres no reason why australia should be considered the toilet for nuclear waste... Its pretty dodgy really. Why should we have to deal with the threat and just generally have the area dangerous just because other nations choose to use nuclear power... No matter how much they pay our government, not us... We shouldnt have to deal with it. And i bet they do it without listening to what the people think. |
||||
kanniget Newbie Joined: 05/06/2006 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1 |
There is an even bigger problem with Nuclear waste than the storage, see this link for details.. http://www.energybulletin.net/16579.html Basically for every Tonne of usable uranium product there is 9 tonnes of Uranium hexafluoride waste produced, and this is even before the energy is produced by the reactor. This is very unstable and dangerous but no one mentions the costs of storage of this by-product in any energy evaluations. |
||||
Bryan1 Guru Joined: 22/02/2006 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1210 |
Here's a good idea for the waste just make up some yellow cake cookies for all the politicans and before you know it the world problems will disappear and sane people will take over.  |
||||
| petanque don Senior Member Joined: 02/08/2006 Location: AustraliaPosts: 212 |
As an economics student how do you “cost” a project that will span thousands of years? As this has never been done before what problems are likely to arise a thousand years or more into the project? Who would pay for these unforseen costs? Logically as Australians derived no benefit from using the products originally the project should be costed so that future generations should not suffer any penalty. |
||||
| Warpspeed Guru Joined: 09/08/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 4406 |
Best place to bury bulk high level nuclear waste is right under the floor of Parliament house. Anyone that thinks storing nuclear waste here in Australia is a great idea, should be given some to take home. Cheers, Tony. |
||||
Lost dog Newbie Joined: 24/08/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1 |
Is there any reason that spent rods can't be stored in the mines from which they came, or is this too simplistic?  |
||||
| thefinis Regular Member Joined: 23/08/2006 Location: United StatesPosts: 53 |
For years the yanks have wanted to store nuclear waste in Texas underground salt domes but unless the group of shysters in control for the last decade or so slipped it in the backdoor we told them to keep it where they made it. Not sure what is happening with France's nuclear waste program but several years back I saw a show on how they did it. It seems that for years France has made money off taking others nuclear waste processing it and burying it. As near as I remember they rejuvenated/recycled what could be reused(some of the spent rods maybe) and the rest including low level stuff like gloves, suits, dirt etc was mixed and melted down and turned into low grade radioactive marbles. A deep hole was drilled in stable formations, lined with concrete and then the marbles and liquid glass were poured into the hole and cemented off. Seemed pretty safe as even if the hole and concrete was breached the glass would protect the marbles from leaching into water. The downside was all that waste being was being transported through the country by rail and truck to the plant. There was a chance for a spill while in transport. So before you get on this band wagon think about how the unsafe waste will get to the processing plant or disposal site. The other side of the coin is that the nuclear waste isn't very safe where they are holding most of it now and something needs to be done or there will be more bad spills in the future. Finis Texas born and bred |
||||
vasi Guru Joined: 23/03/2007 Location: RomaniaPosts: 1697 |
The safest radioactive material is in natural form, underground and must left there. Nuclear power plants is a very bad bussines. With advantage only on short terms. Too much poison for nothing. Also we have nuclear plants. Keep Australia safe if you can. Nothing can be so dangerous for LIFE existence. And speaking for the weather conditions (including earth quakes), no one can predict the future. The wheater conditions are changing all over the world. Think for the future of your healthy cildrens. But the politicians are very dangerous for their people when big quantity of money are involved. A very good politcian is a good salesman and a very good liar. If big efforts are made for changing people's mind, then here is about money (alot). Hobbit name: Togo Toadfoot of Frogmorton Elvish name: Mablung Miriel Beyound Arduino Lang |
||||
 Print this page |
