What could the NFCRC have concluded that would have influenced Noel Wauchope’s views on nuclear energy? Let me suggest the answer. Nothing. She is a self-described long time anti-nuclear activist. She is not alone. I first encountered the species about 50 years ago in the streets of an inner Melbourne suburb. This was long before there was any need for low-emissions energy, and no concern about climate change. The anti-nuclear driving force was the bomb, plain and simple.

50 years of operation of over 400 nuclear power stations has changed nothing for the activists. But now the need for low-emission power is real. So what’s their new tack? Nuclear waste is horrible, despite the experience with over 400 power stations. Nuclear supporters are climate sceptics, which might be true for some but the supporting data seem scarce. And renewables will do the trick. And anyone who says different is part of a giant nasty global lobby, a global conspiracy.

Well, I’m not a climate sceptic. I think we will require future energy at quantities commensurate with maintaining and increasing our living standards. I don’t believe that there will ever be technologies that neutralise the effects of fossil fuel combustion products. I am not scared of nuclear wastes, any more than of the huge quantities of infinitely permanent toxic non-radioactive wastes (like arsenic, cadmium, mercury) that inevitably accompany our industrialised societies. I am not a nuclear activist or advocate, long term or anything else. I’m just a rational scientist.

But above all, I believe that the hopes that renewables can fully replace fossil fuels are nothing more than wishful thinking. My belief is based on deep knowledge of energy technologies. Understanding the limitations of renewables is surely the central point in the formation of modern attitudes to nuclear energy. Maybe that should be the aim of the next energy Royal Commission. Long term anti-nuclear activists can start working on their submissions.

Quite simply, I smell a Chinese rat. How very very convenient. Another step along the way in turning Australia into a Chinese farm on top, with a nuclear waste dump underneath: and apparently, at the cost to the Australian taxpayer of $600m in this time of apparent austerity.

IMO if Chinese wish for a necular waste dump in Australia, let's have an open and honest debate.

Well Noel, what is your problem here. You seem to be violently against nuclear energy but you don't explain why you have a problem with it. Perhaps for your next article you could explain to us why nuclear power is so evil in your eyes. I look forward to reading what you really think.

At last, someone has found a use for most of South Australia and Wauchope is objecting. We should make her live there and then see whether she thinks the place should be put to use.

"The message from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (NFCRC) is clearly a plan to make South Australia rich, by importing foreign nuclear wastes"

Yet the US President and his administration are deeply concerned about the problems and costs of keeping waste stocks, even low-level waste.

As if Uncle Sam, the Brits, French and so many other countries who are keen to send their problems elsewhere would be doing so if there was a dollar in it. It isn't as if the US, which is every bit as large as Australia and larger with Alaska, doesn't have its own stable, unpopulated desert areas.

The US State Department has been casting about for years for a convenient rationalisation and they reckon in their 'cradle to grave' that would apply exclusively to unwanted nuke waste that they have found one. George 'Dubya' Bush found the first big dupe in his 'Little Deputy' John Howard.

Here I find myself mostly agreeing with Tombee! The fear mongering lady seems to have a problem with simple maths, not to mention logical reasoning?

We need to stop the endless chicken little's sky falling hysteria, if only to understand that the only way forward now, is to develop FBR's that use and reuse uranium, plutonium and nuclear waste! Which will exhaust the fissile capacity or any remaining weaponizing capability; and leave waste with a seriously reduced half life of as little as 300 years?

Surely even dumb as dishwater drongos from down under could be trusted with that much!

A better use for the world's quite massive stockpiles of fissile materials, than as bombs that at present, could destroy the world, many times over!

That said, that's for more technologically advanced nations with an already existing nuclear technology? Whereas we could pursue a much safer cheaper than coal thorium powered old technology outcome, given we know more than enough science for that!

And for the following self evident reasons. #1 there's no weapons spinoff. #2 there's far less waste, (around 5%) which is far less toxic and eminently suitable for long life space batteries! #3 We own enough of this material to power the world for up to 700 years, or ourselves for far longer if we use it as we should to rebuild our own manufacturing sector! And cheaper than coal power will allow us to do just that! And in spades as publicly owned and operated not for profit amenity!

And given it is properly sited, buried below in bedrock, able to very safely power cities with seriously cheaper power, (3-4 cents per kilowatt hour?) from central positions no longer dependant on the great white elephant of a very vulnerable national grid, with its massive transmission (around 11%) and distribution (around 64%) losses!

What? You think the (expanding) increasingly assertive propagandizing Chinese wanted to buy it out of their altruistic humanity? Get real and get accurate or get out of the way!
Alan B.

Her notion that the the government is influenced by climate sceptics is absurd. Hunt and Turnbull are right up with the rest of the greenies on the subject. And, renewable energy is not "that great".

I'm surprised that the RC made foreign waste their main recommendation. Commissioner Scarce later clarified by saying foreign interests should put up most of the money, estimated at $40 bn in their report. After the sub snub one of those countries won't be Japan. In any case I strongly believe that nuclear countries should keep the unwanted leftovers on their home soil not try to fob it off.

Having said that SA could probably do it cheaper than other countries. In the Woomera restricted area there will be discontinued tunnels at Challenger and Prominent Hill mines. The actinides to be buried there may have originated as U235 at nearby Olympic Dam. I do agree that SA should do reprocessing and higher burnup with a Candu or as yet uncommercial 4th generation reactor.

Barring further developments it looks like the cheapest nuclear baseload will come from clusters of large light water reactors like the AP1000. These could be in the Hunter and Latrobe valleys noting the 2 GW Liddell NSW coal station is due to close in 2022. SA could do the fuel reprocessing and would need a small high level repository just for Australian waste. Get that going then think about foreign waste.

Are Noel.

You have inadvertently set out good arguments for a nuclear waste dump (+ small modern reactor research) in South Australia.

I always wondered: "How and where in the world can a waste dump gain $Billions in profit".

Noel by saying: "However, the significance remains. Once Australia has set up a nuclear waste importing industry, the nuclear reactor salesmen of USA, Canada, South Korea, will have an excellent marketing pitch for South Asia, as the nuclear waste problem has been removed from their shores.. And South Asia is exactly the market that the NCRC has in its sights. "

So it is the "salesmen of USA, Canada, South Korea" will will pay $Billions to a South Australian waste dump because the waste dump is a technical/regulatory/political prerequisite for them to build reactors overseas and even in Australia.

Thanks for the pro-nuclear arguments.

Pete

from Noel Wauchope
At least one of my critics is asking me "What is my problem?" regading nuclear power and nculear waste importing
I don't normally say something insulting , and certainly don't mean to.

But what first came to my mind, in answer, is that famous statement by Bill Clinton:

IT's THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

IN answer to Plantagenet. Let us suppose that the South Australian nuclear waste importing business IS, after all, a profitable venture.

It would be better if it were developed by private enterprise. That way, the State could get some royalties, without taking the huge risks involved. A very big risk is of the State being left with "stranded" canisters of high level nuclear waste, that cannot ever be returned to sender.

If private enterprise took the risks, - much better for South Australians. Oh, but I forget, no private company would take it on, and there would be no chance of them getting insurance. South Australia would need to have some version of the USA's notorious Price Anderson Act, making sure that the tax-payers take all the risk.

Noel Wauchope: So, the only reason for South Australia to develop a massive nuclear waste management business is to make money. If it's not profitable, then it shouldn't be done.

Nuclear Waste Facility. What a great way to bolster Australia's Bottom Line.

The Anti-Nuclear lobbyists will be screaming in their beds. "Noooooo!"

Australia could solve a lot of problems with storing the Worlds Nuclear Waste.

1. They pay Australia to take the Waste of their hands.
2. They pay for the ongoing Maintenance of the Nuclear Site.
3. Australia owns the Nuclear Waste.
4. The Nuclear Waste in in a Secure Location where it can't go missing or get stolen.
5. The Aboriginal get compensated for their Land with Schools, Work & a University, taking The Aboriginal people out of the Stone Age into the Nuclear in one hit on their own Traditional Lands.
6. The dedicated to find ways of utilizing Nuclear Waste for the benefit of Man.
7. The Research belongs to Australia.
8. The Technology can then be sold or Leased out to benefit Australia's Financial bottom line.

Ok. It's not a short term gain which it seems interests the Accountants mostly, <If it's not profitable, then it shouldn't be done.> but this idea will pay big Dividends in the end.

We're not complete babes in the woods here. But have amongst us, inventors of pulsed laser method of enriching uranium. Technology gifted by one, just here to help, K Rudd, to the U.S?

I don't agree that that was solely his call and ask that the CSIRO scientists (ours) who developed this vastly superior and much cheaper method of enriching uranium, be tasked with improving their invention, so as to return the presumably purloined patent along with the possibility of value adding our existing exports?

If we're serious about reimporting waste as a profitable venture, then what additional risk if any? Do we countenance by value adding to existing peaceful purpose power grade exports?

I'd imagine that (leased) fuel rods would need less room and therefore, could be shipped at less cost to us? And for a far greater return?

And yes, we'd need safeguards and good security! Nothing new in that regard!?

Without a doubt, it is the economy stupid! And better served or saved by actually, finally selling more to the world than what we buy!

Believe it or not, we shelter folk who seriously believe we can borrow from ourselves indefinitely (the Zimbabwean money printing model) to pay for recurrent expenditure and imports? And others who think the welfare model can be extended to all other citizens? And paid for by plucked from thin air, magic pudding money!?
Alan B.

Hi ChristinaMac1, Noel

The reasons a nuclear waste dump should be an initially State financed and run venture include:

1. A permanent waste dump in Australia whould be groundbreaking domestic-politically-legally and in terms of calculated safety risks that it cannot be left to mining companies (eg. BHP). Can a private industry actor be trusted to be responsible for calculated risks and other issues?

2. A waste dump serves an essential public benefit not only for Australians but for humans internationally. This is as an carbon free electrical power source that minimises global warming.

3. Waste dumps serve public health objectives. Anti-cancer medical isotopes are produced by the Lucas Heights reactor and foreign reactors that ideally should have a permanent wast dump for the waste from reactor functioning.

4. Waste dumps like national defence involve some risks that cannot be covered in terms of private industry insurance alone.

Regards

Pete

In reply to PLantagenet

Without getting into arguments about climate change action, ethics, and the making of medical radioisotopes without using a nuclear reactor, my article was really just examining the motives for the South Australian nuclear waste dump plan.

The whole plan is pitched at making South Australia rich.

If that doesn't work out, I doubt that South Australians will be happy about becoming an economic "sacrifice zone" for those other charitable reasons.

ChristinaMac1: The whole plan is pitched at making South Australia rich.

So are you saying Australia should do it for free or not do it at all? I don't see anything wrong with the State making money out of the Nuclear Waste Facility. All Business work on making a Profit to benefit their Workers & Shareholders.

As I see it, the benefits of Owning the Nuclear Waste Facility & anything that is put into it plus the Countries pay for the privilege of Dumping their Nuclear Waste in the Facility far outweigh any downside.

See my first Post for a list of Benefits.

It's only the Chardonnay Lefties & the Latte Set that have any real objection to it.

It is certainly not only "Lefties" that have doubts about the economic benefits to South Australia of importing nuclear wastes. Right now the South Australian Parliamentary Committee is examining the proposal. And they sure do have doubts. They are hardly "Lefties"

The financial advisers to the NFCRC admit that there are "significant risks" economically, and MP Tom Kenyon suggests that it could be an economic "disaster".https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/sa-parliamentary-committee-questions-economics-of-importing-nuclear-waste,9371

ChristinaMac1: It is certainly not only "Lefties" that have doubts about the economic benefits to South Australia of importing nuclear wastes. Right now the South Australian Parliamentary Committee is examining the proposal. And they sure do have doubts. They are hardly "Lefties"

I have no problem with that. So it should be. Would I call it doubts just because a Politician asks a hard question? No. I would call it, "doing their job" & it would be remiss of them not to ask questions. To ask, What is the state of play, When, Where & How the remuneration will come? are just the Questions any Business from the local Ice Cream Parlor to BHP would ask when setting up a new Venture. It's called a "Feasibility Study." The thing with a Feasibility Study is that you don't know what any of the Answers are until you have asked all of the Questions.

I doubt that any Business expects to make a fantastic Profit in their first year. There is an old saying, "Build & they will come." Too many Infrastructures in Australia are built with only the present in mind, not the Future.

I see them build a Road. A study is done on a structure in, say 2000 & it takes 5 years. It says the Road needs to be up graded to cope with the present traffic (2000), then a review is done for another 5 years, then contracts are let out for another 5 years then the Contract is awarded & planning begins & the Road starts to be designed & upgraded to the findings of year 2000. It taks another 5 years for the Road to be finished. The Road is 25 years behind & in a worse position then when the Study started.

What should have happened? The road should have been designed to cope with traffic 50 years in the future. But Accountants won't have that, They call it over designing, unnecessary expenditure, etc, etc,. Therefore Australia Infrastructure is always 50 years behind where it should be.
Cont.

Cont
The same with the NWF. It shouldn't matter if the money doesn't come rolling in in the first year. It's the Future that counts & this is one Project that will pay off Big Time in the end.

Providing, of course that the Questions are asked & assurances are Guaranteed.

Noel Wauchope is an avowed anti-Nuclearist. He doesn't want any nuclear anything in Australia. I do agree with one thing. These other Countries do seem to build their Nuclear Power plants on Fault Lines & known Tsunami Areas. Why they do this? I don't know? It's really stupid.

Australia is a relatively Earthquake Free Zone & any Reactor or NWF would need to be build well away from any suspect areas. Which wouldn't be hard to do in Australia.

Let's hope Noel or any of his Ilk ever need Nuclear medicine. I for one would deny the benefits of Nuclear Medicine to any Anti-Nuclearist. One would hope he doesn't even have a Smoke Alarm in his house. If he does then he would be a hypocrite.

Let's have another look at the eventual Benefits again;

Australia could solve a lot of problems with storing the Worlds Nuclear Waste.

1. They pay Australia to take the Waste of their hands.
2. They pay for the ongoing Maintenance of the Nuclear Site.
3. Australia owns the Nuclear Waste.
4. The Nuclear Waste is in a Secure Location where it can't go missing or get stolen.
5. The Aboriginal get compensated for their Land with Schools, Work & a University, taking The Aboriginal people out of the Stone Age into the Nuclear in one hit on their own Traditional Lands.
6. The dedicated to find ways of utilizing Nuclear Waste for the benefit of Man.
7. The Research belongs to Australia.
8. The Technology can then be sold or Leased out to benefit Australia's Financial bottom line.
9. Australia is Geologically Safe.

Hi ChristinaMac1

1. Defence Industry - As I see it the Federal Government (for vote-gaining and genuine social concerns) is attempting to lift South Australia out of its rustbelt manufacturing doldrums mainly with money for defence projects. That is about $40 Billion for submarine and warship building over the next 10 years.

2. The nuclear waste-dump concept is partly another opportunity for Federal money for South Australia. And South Australia's extensive, low population, desert geography helps.

I don't think the waste-dump will lead to high profits. Otherwise high waste producing Russia and China with their own extensive deserts and relatively little public opposition to worry about would have established high profit, international waste-dumps years ago.

So I think the waste-dump concept in South Australia may run at a loss for years but business could pick-up, and some profits made, as new style reactors catch-on internationally especially in India and a renewed Japanese nuclear reactor industry.

A waste-dump zone covering 1/10,000th? of South Australia wouldn't make it a "sacrifice zone". Quite a bit of South Australia has been restricted for certain purposes for decades, eg. http://www.defence.gov.au/woomera/permit-tourist.htm .

Regards

Pete

Australia houses old deteriorating nuclear bombs. They need to be buried.

Giday McReal

Really?

Then where is "Australia [currently housing] old deteriorating nuclear bombs."

"In the Top Secret Bunker drilled 5 kms below Parliament House?" I hear you ask.

Here's the proof:

"Those who know of this remote bunker gain access through a series of locked doors in Parliament's science-fiction basement, where electric carts cruise almost silently along tunnels so confusing and featureless that they have been given street names.

You must call security to tell that you are down there, for if you were to accidentally lock yourself in The Cathedral, no one would hear your screams."

More? See http://www.smh.com.au/national/in-the-great-yawning-vault-carved-below-parliament-no-one-can-hear-you-scream-20090320-94ha.html

I can see him now, a commanding yet unconvincing Malcolm Fraser on television announcing to his people that the nuclear waste problem had been solved by a product called SYNROC. Looking back now it really is pathetic how politicians can fool themselves with a presumptive "messianic visionary" view of the future of which scientists and the sweaty masses are unappreciative, sometimes even contemptuous.

Not only is it pathetic, it is ironic that our lucky country has space to burn and a gullible public who can be drip-fed a fairy tale with untold riches in prospect to ameliorate the odd slightly jarring fact of human frailty, political expediency and industrial imperatives. Transport of these nuclear waste products alone raises considerations of sabotage/terrorism from religious/political fanatics. Loading and unloading hundreds of canisters by crane, road, rail and sea transport with a repeat of the transport logistics at the destination. Thanks to Youtube we can see major accidents occurring daily around the world, leaving the viewer stupefied as to the idiocy required bring about such events.

Yes, I know industry and governments deal with dangerous goods every day with " little or no harm" to anyone or anything. But how many of those "dangerous goods" will render a contaminated site dangerous to all life for 100,000 years? And how much leeway is the public to understand between "little" and "no"? How many deaths and suffering is considered as "acceptable" by the statisticians? One fact is certain, though, no politician, science advisor or captain of industry will figure in the count.
http://www.politico.eu/interactive/in-pictures-chernobyl-30-years-later/

The glibness of the argument, the bare-faced pie-in-the-sky predictions such as from Jayb should have all Australians demanding answers as to the responsibilities and guarantees of the waste providers. At what precise point in the waste disposal process does the waste become Australia's "property"? Should we be proud owners of this stuff as Jayb suggests? After all, it's entirely our responsibility. Then there's assuring the integrity and security of the transport and subsequent storage of this stuff with meticulous inspections at strategic intervals. Cont.............

Cont........Familiarity breeds contempt and human error intrudes into the equation.
Glib lobbyists and gullible politicians is a potentially disastrous combination. The cane toad infestation is an example of political and scientific incompetence. Apply the same scenario on a much grander scale, on the scale of our world's supply of nuclear waste. When the suff is our property no one is going to rush to our aid to prevent a disaster of faulty packaging that reveals itself ten years down the track.

If this stuff that everyone in the industry wants to foist off onto Australia ever becomes a useful and easy alternative source of energy as predicted is likely to happen then the makers of this commodity will want to keep it for themselves. How far in the future is this likely to happen? Ten years? Twenty years? Seventy years?

As another contributor presciently indicates, if vast wealth rewards the storer of others' nuclear rubbish then Russia's huge Siberian tundra or China's extensive desert
regions might have attracted entrepreneurs before today.

Could Earth's numerous volcanoes be coaxed into swallowing a drum of waste every day and not belch it into the atmosphere? Would the assault of such high temperatures destroy radioactivity? There's one other place that's ideal. The waste could be fired by rocket into the sun. Surely such a diet would not discommode our benevolent life-giver. Several thousand tons of delectable fissionable material would scarcely be noticed. Cont..........

Cont.......I appeal to the reader, this issue will be with Australia for millennia. How can good intentions reach that far into the future? All sorts of rosy pictures will be painted, thousands of mellifluous words will be uttered to radio and TV interviewers, conferences will be organised to dispense factual information and do nothing but promote the concept. Entire forests will be razed to provide the books, pamphlets, journal articles etc. National Geographic and Discovery channels might be persuaded to present spectacular documentaries. A revered figure might be similarly persuaded to lend his or her imprimatur. But keep in mind, world leaders are never averse to publishing lies that cannot be proven to be lies at the time, such as WMDs and the subsequent war on Iraq. The public should be rightly very concerned about storing nuclear waste for others, even at a price. They should be concerned not only at what the experts tell them but what the experts, politicians, advisers and lobbyists DON'T TELL THEM. These people now that there are questions the public must not ask

Of course the other alternative, which has been followed for the past 70 years, is to just talk & do nothing about the situation.

"Let's have another cuppa Tea & all said Right-O."

Jayb, Monday, 29 August 2016 4:18:37 PM writes: "Of course the other alternative, which has been followed for the past 70 years, is to just talk & do nothing about the situation."

As opposed to doing something, anything, no matter how ill-conceived or fraught with faults or sold as a pig in a poke?
The quantity of verbal diarrhea and prognosticative piffle that has been presented here in the guise of informed debate is astonishing. One could easily be forgiven for being suspicious of the agenda espoused by the pro-nuclear debate. Their enthusiasm is of the kind one encounters in episodes of Bananas in Pyjamas, where actors with a desperately feigned eagerness try to gain the attention of a bunch of suspicious and cynical 5-year-olds. That is the pervading impression one gains from the pro-nuclear opinions here so far.

The Nuclear Waste Disposal Site [NWDS] is a scenario that could remain an intractable problem for a very long time. Human beings, no matter the initial strictest of disciplinary routine, slowly succumb to the latent contempt they have for repetetive acts. It is as certain as night follows day that procedures become streamlined, detailed observations and measurements become cursory procedures, the more difficult or complicated the procedure then gradually the less strictness is applied to its conduct. Human nature will ensure this happens.

National, state or provincial governments have no right to legislate such an imposition on its people, where a world-wide problem becomes the problem of one government only and for centuries into the future. Altruism has an awfully short shelf-life and is unsuited for application to dangers that linger for 100,000 years or longer. Cont..........

From Noel Wauchope
Thank you, Pogi. I think that Jayb has missed the point of my article. I was purposely leaving aside any questions of ethics, environment safety etc.

That's because the Royal Commission itself, and the Weatherill government, and the media - all have focussed not on ethics etc, but on the plan to make South Australia rich. I was querying the motives of the nuclear lobby in this, as it's clear that financial gain is the purported motive.

Australia has of course, no obligation to import foreign nuclear wastes. The accepted obligation in this is for countries where the waste is generated to take responsibility for its disposal.

Jayd's idea is that South Australia should act in an altruistic way, becoming a sacrifice zone for the world's nuclear industry.

A noble idea indeed, but it has not been pitched to the public in that way. Surely the public should be informed about this altruistic idea, and then perhaps, a referendum would be in order.

Cont.............Anyone who believes a politician's assurances about duly signed and solemnised agreements being water-tight and absolutely binding should consult a history of international agreements throughout the ages. Contracts to regulate conduct in a field so fraught with possibilities of subsequent disagreement and disruption are less than worthless, they can be dangerous. The extremes Japan has gone to to legitimise its whaling in the Southern Ocean is a case in point. China's grab for the West Philippines Sea is another. Nations will act lawlessly when they feel their interests are threatened or even out of pure cussedness and bloody-mindedness if they think they can get away with it. Adolph Hitler's Third Reich shines as an example here.

If a nation defaults on its payments for secure storage.........what then? What avenues does Australia have for recovery? Return the waste to its former owner? Declare war? Have a firm word with their ambassador over lunch? Ensure each contracting party has two guarantors, one or both of whom will assume responsibility? And who guarantees them? Would the UN assume a guarantor role?

Then there's nations like the USA whose philosophy of capitalism is to gradually reduce costs, reduce costs, reduce costs until a disaster and lives are lost. The number of lives lost is factored into an equation with the cost of the entire program and provides the benchmark where a decision is taken to suffer infrequent disasters as the cost of doing business or return to an earlier program before the disaster. The space shuttle Challenger catastrophe in 1986 exemplifies this scenario. Numerous examples are found throughout the industrial history of the USA. Who is expecting to be our biggest and "best" customer? Who is constantly lobbying us to refrain from subsidising the full market price to our infirm and chronically ill citizens for life-preserving pharmaceuticals? Reflect on how Donald Trump might do a deal with Australia on NWD. Do you think we could get him to build a wall between NSW and Queensland?

ChristinaMac1: South Australia should act in an altruistic way, becoming a sacrifice zone for the world's nuclear industry.

No-one mentioned South Australia becoming a "Sacrificial Ground." More meaningless scare words from the Anti-Nuclear Lobby.

ChristinaMac1, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 5:15:10 PM.

"By unblocking the back end of the nuclear fuel cycles for our international partners and customers, rapid development in conventional Generation III+ nuclear technology receives a strong boost …"

I think I'm right in interpreting "the back end of the nuclear fuel cycles" is an oblique way of saying, "the generation of nuclear waste". One is entitled to speculate on the motive behind the use of indirect jargon such as this. The subterfuge of using less confrontational words, even fine-sounding ones, to express a not so nice blunt truth has been a search for the Holy Grail in the crassest advertising on TV and billboard.
That the back end had been blocked begs the question, "Whence came this constipation of the industry?" Is it self-inflicted? A voluntary altruistic attempt at limiting waste production or perhaps, more truthfully, from government? From exasperated government perceiving a crisis and preferring that the industry self-regulate but seeing its hopes dashed by nuclear corporate greed seeking to have their mess cleaned up by someone else? This time by a pie-in-the-sky scheme pitched to a bunch of ingenuous political rubes in a state hardly anyone on Earth has heard of....South Australia.

"The NFCRC eliminated most of the EU, Russia, China, North America as customers." As the NFCRC does not support the Archer proposal [the proposal outlined above; that someone else other than the nuclear industry itself, should clean up the mess] then in fact the lobbyists like Brook and Heard will have a tougher time than expected to earn a crust. And unless the NFCRC comes to the party, the scheme whereby SA becomes paved with gold will fall flat on its face.

No true Australian could possibly support the bottom-feeders and corporate sharks in their proposal to use the great state of South Australia as a scapegoat to expiate their greed.

It's a pity that Noel Wauchope, ChristinaMac1 and others didn't do some simple arithmetic at the beginning and they wouldn't be getting so hot under the collar about something that is in reality, extraordinarily safe.

Carbon monoxide from cars is potentially dangerous, and Hydrogen Sulfate (from farting) even more so. But before anyone gets their knickers in a knot about the dangers, it's a sensible thing to quantify it, and to compare CO or H2S with that which is in the environment already. Just as the exposure to CO or H2S at 1/1000th of background is unlikely to cause a problem, so is the exposure to radioactivity at 1/1000th of background. So the starting point is - How many Becquerels of radioactivity? Fukushima for example released at most 520 Petabecquerels into the ocean and the natural radioactivity in the oceans is 16 million Petabecquerels. So at its peak, Fukushima added 1/30000th to the radioactivity of the oceans. Notwithstanding some of Chritina's rants where she blames every dead fish in North and South America on Fukushima, this is simply impossible.

Do the numbers! We live on a radioactive planet, garden soil is typically 600,000 Bq/m3. The radioactivity from any proposed dump, at worse, is quite modest compared to background radiation - just like CO from cars and H2S from farts. We could run a dump in a remote part of South Australia for 100 years and the total radioactivity would still be 1% or so of the NATURAL radioactivity in South Australia.

I find it absurd that so many worry about radioactivity without making any attempt to quantify the problem and if you do quantify the problem, it's a small problem compared with other environmental issues.

from Noel Wauchope.
In reply to Billy Bangle
I wasn't worrying about radioactivity. My article said nothing about that.Indeed, I was assuming that there was no problem with radioactivity, and that the whole nuclear waste importation plan was fine, from the health and safety point of view.

My concern was the very real possibility of South Australia being left with "Stranded Waste Containers", and the accompanying risk of financial failure, and the whole project becoming an economic disaster for the State of South Australia.

ChristinaMac1: My concern was the very real possibility of South Australia being left with "Stranded Waste Containers", and the accompanying risk of financial failure, and the whole project becoming an economic disaster for the State of South Australia.

Thanks for clearing that up because I had you pegged as one of those "I just hate anything Nuclear" people.

The Waste Containers can be recycled. There's one other industry on it's own. Value Added.

apart from the benefits to South Australia of;

. They pay Australia to take the Waste of their hands.
2. They pay for the ongoing Maintenance of the Nuclear Site.
3. Australia owns the Nuclear Waste.
4. The Nuclear Waste is in a Secure Location where it can't go missing or get stolen.
5. The Aboriginal get compensated for their Land with Schools, Work & a University, taking The Aboriginal people out of the Stone Age into the Nuclear in one hit on their own Traditional Lands.
6. The dedicated to find ways of utilizing Nuclear Waste for the benefit of Man.
7. The Research belongs to Australia.
8. The Technology can then be sold or Leased out to benefit Australia's Financial bottom line.
9. Australia is Geologically Safe.
10. Australia would be at the forefront of Nuclear Waste Storage, Management, Recycling & Other Uses Technology.

I don't think you really need to be worried about the benefit to South Australia's bottom line in the long run.

The issue of Nuclear Waste Disposal [NWD] has arisen now because around the world government legislated restrictions on the production of nuclear waste have stifled R & D on new reactor technology. The reactor building industry is in a deepening slump and needs to clean up its act before being allowed to produce a whole new generation of nuclear waste. The scheme for South Australia is a multi-national industry ploy to get someone else to pay for the clean up. A $445billion carrot is dangling from a stick as an enticement. The prospect of such riches is enough to make the average politician slaver uncontrollably. But note well, it's not a guarantee or an offer........it's a lobby group estimate given 100% ideal circumstances. In other words, it's fantasy! It's assuming that every nuclear nation and those in prospect of becoming nuclear in the next 70 years will elect governments that will abide by the contractual obligations with NWDS and pay up on time every time.

Now 70 years might be a heck of a long time in politics but it's less than a blink of an eye for residual radioactivity in nuclear waste. Some can remain deadly for in excess of 100,000 years. Can anyone imagine payments for storage being maintained for this length of time? The nuclear industry is hoping the public won't ask questions like this. Can anyone imagine what thousands of canisters of this deadly waste will look like in 100,000 years? Who could guarantee the integrity of their canisters for this length of time? Once again......we mustn't think like this! The nuclear industry will have solved the problem by then, surely! Look how diligently we are seeking to solve our short-term problems today! And if you want to get cynical about it, whether governments pay, multi-national corporations pay or their customers pay, in the long run the tax-payer pays! Just so long as the pay ends up in the executives pockets the source is unimportant really! Cont............

Cont........Who can predict climate change over 100 millennia? Will central Australia remain a desert over all this time? Or might it become, as it once was, lush tropical forest and savannah with regular downpours leaching the contents of those disintegrated canisters into the soils and aquifers. What can we truthfully say about humans in Australia at this time and during the 100 millennia from the time of storage? What can we say about the generation that inherits the problem 70 years from now? What will these generations say about us?

Jayb writes to Noel Wauchope: "No-one mentioned South Australia becoming a "Sacrificial Ground." More meaningless scare words from the Anti-Nuclear Lobby."
Forgive my intrusion here, but why on Earth would you use the phrase "sacrificial ground"? Of course you would avoid it. That someone else has brought it to our attention is damned annoying, isn't it? That gound could well remain sacrificial ground for 100,000 years from now. The nuclear lobby seems not to care what happens after 70 years from now!