Thank you Tom for an excellent post. Informative and sound logic.

It seems to me that there is a real opportunity for Australia to become an influence for good in uranium and its safe useage. If we were to engage in processing through to fuel rods here, then lease the rods to the power companies, then take them back for reprocessing, and then dispose of the wastes in a safe manner (using Synroc, and burying), then we would be able to exert considerable control over the material.

By using this approach, we would have good records as to where the material is, and prevent it from being misused. I think that the power companies would be delighted if Australia were to offer a go-to-whoa service, and I am sure that it could be a very profitable enterprise.

The main issue, of course, is the politics of it all, and the irrational fears that influence the voters. But surely, if the case is made well enough, and the right leadership is provided, all that can be overcome?

If fossil fuels are contributing to long term environmental damage (and that's a big if currently), then nuclear is the solution. It's potentially unlimited, base load, can be sited almost anywhere (subject to earthquake and tsunami risk), has zero emissions, and with end-to-end management won't encourage nuclear weapons proliferation.

It's way ahead of wind, solar, tidal and hydro.

Until such time as renewable energy generation is capable of fulfilling our needs, nuclear energy and gas are the only viable means of substantial reduction of GHG emissions.

The only thing stopping Australia meeting its targets is the mindless factually deficient scare campaign run by the greens.

Quite so.. alternative energy is a bust. If emissions are a problem then how else would we go about reduce them? However, individuals have an extraordinarily adverse to nuclear power. During the recent Japanese reactor problem, one colleague kept on expressing concern. I pointed out that the news reports at the time are very little indication of what is actually happening and, as its in another hemisphere, wait until the official reports come out. Didn't prevent him from obsessing over the matter.

I later found out that a vast oil fire, which was having far more effect on the environment, had gone almost entirely unreported.

Very informative article Tom; thanks. Your points about shipping, rail and pollution caused by coal/ oil compared to Uranium are pertinent; analayses of all energy sources should take into account all aspects of life cycles as you clearly point out.

I am shocked by the huge cost of reprocessing and disposing of nuclear waste (>1/3 of cost) and the huge amount (>70%) sitting in repositories awaiting disposal. These are of course major arguments against nuclear.

'Perhaps the greatest contribution that Australia can make to non-proliferation and more generally enhancing the security of nuclear power users around the Pacific and Indian Oceans is the development of a repository for spent nuclear fuel.' ....... over the dead bodies of a majority of Australians including me.

Solar has none of the disadvantages you have pointed to for both nuclear and fossil fuels. Why not pull out all stops and maximise solar? Together with wind and biomass it can deliver a sustainable, secure energy supply. Your oft-repeated protestations against renewable - 'cant produce base load etc'Curm and Shadow are looking increasingly tired and refutable. You are obviously not aware of the solar thermal / storage advances or of the potential of biomass (Sweden already obtains 32% of its energy from this source and is aiming to be free of oil imports by 2050).

I do admit that, horror of horrors, a renewables future would mean many small decentralized generators taking the power of of the hands of a few big corporations (pun intended).

Let's get up with the leaders instead of staying with the laggards. Long live the carbon price - it's a good start to a bright future n renewables.

Roses1

Whilst solar does not have the problems with CO2 emissions or waste storage, it is still 4x as costly per MW than nuclear, and suffers from the inability to generate at night or whilst overcast.

All renewable generation will still need gas turbines with all the infrastructure to back it up.

Whales, especially killer whales, probably like feasting on Black Ducks, but even so I have always found the arguments proposed in the book The Whale and the Reactor by Langdon Winner to be quire persuasive.

For every tonne of enriched UF6 produced, Australia will have to keep 9 tonnes of Depleted UF6 (dUF6). This waste is far too reactive to bash and bury.

Here is but a part of the US stockpile. The cylinders are 12' x 4' x 1cm thick and must be prevented from corroding:

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/prodhand/sld042.cfm

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/mgmtuses/storage/index.cfm

This stockpile dates back to the 1940s, because no satisfactory method exists for it's proper disposal. If we try, we discover that the energy requirements exceed the "spare" energy generated by nuclear for domestic distribution.

In fact, nuclear is a nett energy loser and turns out to be just another sink in which to pour what's left of our shrinking liquid hydrocarbon fuel supplies.

Tom, you and the other members of the IPA are on the short list for the maintenance crew to inspect and repaint the cylinders every weekend of your natural lives. Your children and grandchildren will be required for this task also.

Get yer overalls ready.....

Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464

Chris - you realise the photographs you link to destroys your own arguement? The storage facility you show is actually quite small - maybe the equivalent of two warehouses, without the expense of enclosure. So we don't require much space at all? Great. Ausralia has a large supply of waste land in out of the way places.

The bit about no solution being found for disposal is quite wrong, incidentally. There are solutions. Its just easier and cheaper to store them the way you show. The actual amount of radiation poses no undue hazard, although you probably wouldn't want to spend your holidays there.

It you who should be given a job as a guard there to warn people away. After all you have done great service in showing us how little storage space is required

Nuclear has it's problems with waste, Sm says solar doesn't work at night, try putting a fluorescent light or a street light over it and say that. It 's a matter of which way you want to go. Households and small business do not have to pay power bills any more, it's your choice.

Ah Curmudgeon

Maybe your estimation is a deliberate snow job to spoil the argument... I dunno.

Quote from the website to which I sent you:

"7,142 cylinders of DUF6 weighs as much as a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. The entire inventory of 57,634 cylinders weighs more than all eight of the Navy's Nimitz-class aircraft carriers combined!"

Those cylinders are 12 foot x 4 foot as I clearly stated.

The contents must NEVER be allowed to spread into the surrounding air and water. There is nothing like UF6 in nature.

Look mate.... I used to work in the mineral processing industry and I sometimes think that talking to lay people is like talking to an old gum-boot.

....which is why I don't come here so much any more.... adieu!

Unclear power is not safe....it will never be safe.....and with a planet being always on the move.....just ask Japan......its a quick fix and everyone knows it.

Listen to these links....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT9i6Y2CQHs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQaKeXZYRJk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rb0bMISOWQ

Now! after you lot wake up to the fact unclear power is just No good, then your grand-children just might not spit on your graves.

CACTUS

Electricity should be rationed out and people should learn to be more frugal. Turn off your aircons, big tv's, laptops etc when you're not using them etc etc. We have so much sunshine - I don't understand why solar isn't being used more. Nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen everywhere. It should be banned for good. What are you going to do with the waste? What are you going to do when earthquakes and other natural disasters happen?

Suie......yes, your quite right. We should all remind ourselves that this earth is the only one we have, and to use what we humans need each day, is only the smartest move for 100's of years to come.

Unclear power on this unstable planet is completely stupid and reckless in the eyes of those of us that can see the true dangers unclear power is.

The first link Suie, Canada and its emphasis on safety looks like unclear power just might be manageable, and yes....for short term its just great, and then some unforeseen natural event like a volcanic molten plume which can pop up just about anywhere and especially near or around the rim of fire.........just ask Japan where to build one.....lol......you would think top scientists in the field of UNCLEAR PHYSICS would of asked a geologist where to build a safe plant, but there you go, communication break-down maybe, oh dear.

100 million years and its still deadly as, and just one big mishap......bigger than Japans screw up, and this planet will become worthless.

Something for all of us to think about.

CACTUS

Thank you, Tom Quirk, for another excellent article. I have a few comments:

1. Your point about the relevance of the energy density of coal versus yellow cake is worth highlighting. It takes 20,000 coal shippings to send the same amount of energy as one shipping of yellow cake. Which would we prefer: 20,000 shippings of coal through the Great Barrier Reef or one shipping of yellow cake out of Darwin?

2. There are other reasons Australia is probably the best place in the world to manage used nuclear fuel (it is not waste because we will reuse it in the future to recover the remaing 90% of available energy we haven’t used yet): Australia is tectonically stable and there are very large areas of inland Australia with suitable geology, with low topographic relief and inland drainage. Low topographic relief means ground water flow is slow, so even if there was a leak, any contamination would travel very slowly. Inland drainage means any leak would not get out to sea even if the leak got into surface water.

3. I agree, Australia is missing an enormous economic opportunity. Also we are missing the opportunity to provide a good service to other nations who are not as well placed as Australia to manage used nuclear fuel.

ONKALO (Hiding Place)

Tiny Finland is the only nation making a serious attempt at high level storage.

"Onkalo must last at least one hundred thousand years,
yet nothing built by man has lasted even a tenth of that time."

"If you in the future come across this,
.... what will it tell you .... about us?"

Great Sunday viewing, but you'll need a good sound system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llAUQL9Wkk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywUpmHVH8Xw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5anOS8mzQ8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfVs07XZOeQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS6NIoZuAlY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlFswXPpgNw&feature=related