“The answer to waste is, as France is doing, is reprocess, re enrich and reuse as much as possible.”

The above information is a dumbing down of the realities Shadow Minister and I would request (for the sake of accuracy and transparency) that in future,
you provide links to substantiate such claims:

The reality is 'that close to 890,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste has been produced in France by the end of 2004.

'Almost 40 percent of this amount is linked to reprocessing and this total does not account for some 12,000 m3 of waste from the reprocessing plant in Marcoule that was dumped into the sea.'

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS148422+15-Sep-2009+PRN20090915

“Sir Vivor et al, the issue of waste is over exaggerated. The entire stock pile of spent uranium from the US in 50 years is 9000 tons or in volume about 500 cubic meters,”

Another furphy Shadow Minister unless you can show me how you've managed to convert 50,000 metric tonnes of radioactive waste into 9,000 tons?:

http://southcarolina.sierraclub.org/legislation/tracker/H.3545.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/spent_fuel/ussnfdata.html

http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-11.html

Radioactive waste accumulation (in cubic metres) In the UK goes something like this:

As at 1 April 2007:

HLW:........1,400
ILW:..... 364,000
LLW:..... .17,000

Total radioactivity of stocks (4 TBq):

HLW:..... 36,000,000
ILW:..........2,200,000
LLW:................ <100

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fHfoUMHgyOQJ:www.nda.gov.uk/documents/loader.cfm%3Furl%3D/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm%26pageid%3D28862+nda+uk+nuclear+waste+volume+2009&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjpWK1TSCevDl9OHnNM_d0wcONHxOYGEKVmPK6WcQD7y7tpcVpGjvRwoL__Z6aey71MYUlvKYd-_uZWVdt-3yQZhXUwn0sB2P_gNChp-o4dSUfqVrIzuGjROSI8qdPSB51p_zKE&sig=AHIEtbQB0Wtgtsahwx3ogyENinAyt_YVZQ

Hi Protagoras,

Protagoras,
That's about the longest link I recall seeing, but it works.

You can shrink these things by using

http://tinyurl.com/create.php

Try
http://tinyurl.com/ydrtr4z
and you will get the same result, with a link far easier to email. You can also do a custom name.

but it's no good for warming towels.

The presentation of the nuclear waste hazard gives more cause to pursue the development of fourth generation reactors. A reactor running a one gigawatt generator will utilise over 99% of the fissile energy of the nuclear fuel and produces a tonne of waste per year, the radioactivity of which will decay to background levels within a few decades with some of the proposed designs. And there is the prospect of treating longer lived isotopes like iodine 129 (<7 kg produced as waste per year, and a billionth the radioactivity of I 131) with transmutation.

With a viable generation four reactor, waste is a comparative non-issue compared to the waste from current reactors.

As Geoff Davies has already commented the debate about nuclear is a distraction.
Hansen has argued that there is a need to respond urgently to climate change. For those who accept that proposition it follows that nuclear is not part of the mix.
If you want to take a closer look at those arguments you could have a look here http://groups.google.com.au/group/nuclear-debate-february-5-2010 Mark Diesendorf's power point presentation identifies which existing renewable energy technologies are available now and could be implemented with a fraction of the lead time required for Nuclear.
Of course the elephant in the room remains population - if we plan to increase our population to 35 million by 2050 it will make it even more difficult to address climate change. (this does not apply to climate change sceptics since they live in a different universe where different law of physics apply.)

Agreed Baygon. Nuclear proponents might believe they're informed about nuclear energy but they're less acquainted with the imminent global environmental threats and trends.

By 2050 it will be too late to do anything about climate change with the puny 25 nuclear power plants the Switowski Report recommends to provide just 30% of our electricity. And why would any sane person believe that Australia would even have 25 reactors by 2050 anyway?

Gen IV reactors are not commercially available so do we invest in reactors that are technologically dead and dangerous and have to be resurrected as the US is doing, much to the disgust of a discerning public?

Further, are uranium supplies less than 50 years, as Ian Lowe argued, 85 years, as the Switkowski report argued, or, as the House Standing Committee on Industry and Resources argued, 270 years? Or do we believe the unqualified nuke pushers who now tell us uranium supplies are infinite because of the Gen IV technology? But when? When, pray tell? When all hell has broken loose, that’s when.

Australia’s greed merchants are only interested in flogging as much uranium to other nations as possible. How much will be left for Australia’s needs, considering Gen IVs remain a distant possibility and are too little too late?

The long term aim of the fusion ITER operating stage at Cadarache, France is scheduled to be dismantled after 2040 but that doesn’t mean that industrial exploitation will be immediately possible following the experiment. When will the creation of DEMO, the prototype fusion reactor that actually produces electricity be available? The 22nd Century?

We need to invest in new energy sources right now or continue to suffer the pain which is being inflicted on us by an outraged planet whose oceans, air, lands and living species are also contaminated with military and nuclear radioactive fall-out, a dire and infinite calamity which remains “out of sight out of mind” to those asleep at the wheel.

Good stuff Sir Vivor – thanks for the tip. Now I can do one thing more than just drive this contraption - yay!

Fester and Quanda,

I was not proposing nukes for small island states, I was just critical of the diesel gen solution, and still am. Gas turbines are still far cheaper. Your proposal of wave energy is a waste of time as there are no commercial systems working yet.

Protagoras, I mixed my figures up, there is about 9000 cubic meters of spent nuclear fuel at 47 000 tons (20 tonnes uranium = 1 cubic meter.) But this still only equals a soccer field less than 2m deep.

If reprocessing is done, with re enrichment, this quantity can be reduced, and the radioactivity from non uranium isotopes (iodine and plutonium) removed. U234 will still remain and be a bit of a handling issue.

The latest ZS proposal is for 50 reactors by 2050 that supply 50% of the power. These would be Gen III type reactors and or CANDU type reactors (not GenII) which generate a fraction of the waste.

A large scale alternative to fossil fuels or nuclear does not exist either. If nuclear is not employed, there is zero chance of meeting any emissions targets.

The waste you quote as generated include all the mine tailings, clothing etc, most of which has such a low level of radio activity as not to be a serious threat.