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.