I don't think Australia will have any logistical problems with nuclear waste, only political problems. Australia has vast areas of PreCambrian basement rocks some with depleted mines so the hole is already dug. Even more conveniently some are in the Woomera Prohibited Area now used for drone testing but which in the 60s had A-bomb tests. Those areas have already lost their nuclear virginity.

The first SMRs to market seem likely to be of the light water type, pressurised or unpressurised. Their spent fuel could be reprocessed which is done in several nuclear countries but not in the US. Decades from now we may want to do that and I suggest mine tunnels will make that retrieval easier. OTOH nuclear countries built on swamp like Bangladesh may suit the borehole approach.

There is no point in discussing anything nuclear in Australia.

no point in discussing anything nuclear in Australia.
ttbn,
What if they were told nuclear sounds like a V8 or the sound of a beer can opening ?

SMR (small modular reactor)

Spent nuclear waste technology has kept pace. What is lacking is, I believe, the arrogant Authors knowledge of that progress. In (walk away safe) MSR nuclear technology, nuclear waste is for the most part, mainly unspent fuel.

Fuel which we would be paid annual millions to accept! Moreover, not only uranium is fuel for nuclear reactors, but, four times more abundant thorium, which does not need enrichment to be used as fuel but rather, two weeks spent in the blanket of a nuclear reactor where it absorbs neutrons to be converted to U233. And as it burns, reduces the half-life to just three hundred (300) years and the waste to around five percent (5%) and vastly less toxic!

Yes, the shielding needs a little beefing, but not a problem. MSR can also be mass produced and shipped wherever power is needed and eliminates to a large extent the need for poles and wires and much of the transmission and distribution losses!

Further, the annual millions we'd be paid to accept nuclear waste, i.e., unspent nuclear fuel would pay all the build cost of a dozen or so, MSR thorium and nuclear waste burners.

Part of the bonus we'd earn would be the hordes of cashed medical tourists using outback and regional medical clinics to access the miracle cancer cure of many death sentence cancers, including some very nasty brain caners, the alpha particle, bismuth 213. A daughter of nuclear decay of thorium in the Molten salt reactor (MSR).

Some day fusion may power the planet, but until then we already have MSR thorium which delivers everything fusion promised but may not deliver for several lifetimes?
Alan B.

Nuclear subs equals nuclear waste! And the need for trained nuclear technologists ahead of delivery. Plus, a plan to dispose of or burn/use that waste.

The useless brain dead in the capital can't or won't think that far ahead, least they have to contend with the burning smell emanating from previously unused cerebral circuits.

We just resumed coal deliveries to China. Which will probably be used to fuel power stations, the manufacture and delivery of armaments and munitions?

Could we see history repeating itself and the term pig iron bob becoming, pig iron elbow?
Alan B.

Tas. Light water is always pressurised! At least 150 atmospheres. Given the heat generated, were this not so, the water would be vapour and instantly decompose to its constitutional parts, (white hot) hydrogen and oxygen. To become in a nano second or less, a massive fuel air bomb to flatten a city block or suburb. (Chernobyl!)

You are right, we have plenty of ready-made burial sites for fuel we get paid annual millions to take, (as former leader with still functioning brain, Bob Huake, wanted) then burn as free fuel ready to use in, walk away safe, MSR technology.
Alan B.

Indy, ttbn would be all over it if we had coal fired subs. Perhaps we could call the first, the Chatanika choo, choo? Ah say boy, shovel that coal and put your back into it, we have a deadline to meet! And I do mean dead!
Alan B.

It all sounds good, but there is still a very big question mark over nuclear waste disposal. Australia is in the fortunate position that it doesn't need to adopt nuclear, as we have the conditions to produce ample quantities of clean renewable green energy. Others are not so fortunate, and nuclear production needs for them to be a consideration, along with all its inherent problems. Politically, I think you would have more chance of convincing Australians to eat 'yellow cake' than take other peoples nuclear waste.

An even bigger question hangs over the massive cost of making Aus 100% reliant on unreliable wind and solar.

The most reliable way of dealing with nuclear waste is by reprocessing it and reusing the fuel rods. This reduces waste by nearly 99% and produces low-cost fuel rods.

Tech-challenged idiots have left Australia without the single safest and most secure carbon-neutral energy source.

To put the nuclear waste issue into perspective a 1 GWH nuclear reactor produces about a cubic metre of radioactive waste per year. Australia's current power consumption would generate about 40 cubic metres per year were it generated by nuclear, so a thousand years of waste could be stored four metres deep on a one hectare area. Future nuclear designs may be able to use the waste as a fuel source, but the rate of waste generation does not make finding a solution for nuclear waste an urgent problem.

Just this afternoon I saw on the News that three Supermarket Groups are going 100% Solar.
That sounds great however, the production of these hectares of solar panels is still mainly Petroleum based.
If Solar is as efficient as its industries keep bleating, why on Earth don't they use Solar for producing these panels first & then start producing the technology without the poluting processes ? Why don't they ? because it can't be done ! Using coal diesel is not as polluting as manufacturing Solar panels & associated cabling & glass.
It's like walking to an airport instead of driving a polluting car but then still board a petroleum guzzling passenger jet for unnecessary travel !

As it has been stated countless time before, the answer to our power usage are small manageable nuclear plants.
The Russians have made use of decommissioned nuclear War ships for years to power remote towns.
Our lot still has to become that smart & practical !