RM
There are issues with solar and wind and it may mean the approach include some reassessment of energy use even if it means a bit of inconvenience. Human beings are highly creative, some of these issues will be solved. All the more reason why population sustainability has to be included in any discussions. More people = higher energy needs.

Bazz there is more waste than just the size of a pool if you include tailings and soil contamination from uranium mining (which is a problem with export not only potential domestic nuclear power).

The waste issue is a real problem and we would be foolish to minimise the risk as SM has as some shadowy Green conspiracy. What purpose is such a conspiracy? Environmentalists have enough attending to real risks without having to make stuff up.

I suggest the conspiracies lie more with those with a financial interest in nuclear.

From the ARPANSA site:

"Amount of Radioactive Waste in Australia
Australia has about 3,500 m3 of low level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste considered suitable for disposal in a near-surface repository. This includes some 2000 m3 of soil lightly contaminated with uranium mill tailings, laboratory waste from research, production of radiopharmaceuticals and research reactor operation, solid residues from the treatment of low level liquid waste, contaminated items such as paper, cardboard, plastic, rags, protective clothing, and some gauges and sealed sources. The low level and short-lived intermediate level waste is currently stored at over 100 locations around the country. The annual generation rate of low and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste suitable for disposal in a repository is about 40 m3 per year."

Note the fact that this is without nuclear power and already there are 100 locations around the nation storing radioactive waste. The waste problem will only increase. There should be honest discussion about waste.

It is interesting that large numbers of German protesters are also concerned about the risks of storage and contamination of radioactive waste (albeit reconditioned). This is a problem that is not going away.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11718098

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/factsheets/is_waste.cfm

http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/radioactive_waste/Pages/RadioactiveWasteManagement.aspx

Pelican,

This is low level waste you are talking about (mostly from medical treatment). The vast majority of which is material and clothing which came into close proximity with a radioactive source.

This low level waste which has almost unmeasurable low level of radioactivity is treated separately from other industrial waste as a precaution rather than as a real risk. One could spend a year immersed in this waste and pick up less radiation dosage than 10 minutes in the sun.

This is hardly a problem for future generations, and the fact that you are publishing it as "gasp horror" 45 cubic meters of waste a year shows that you are not past bending the truth.

Pelican,
People are always saying we can solve this or that problem
if we put our minds to it. Then why can't we do the same with nuclear waste ?
Once the lights go out solutions will be found very fast.
There is a lot of country out there that could hold the waste.
What do you think should be done with the ash heaps at the coal power
stations ? They have a radio active component.

The reprocessing will get rid of the really dangerous waste and the
carry on in Germany is political rather than safety, at least as far
as the organisers are concerned.

Methinks they protest too much.

SM
Where is the gasp horror in my post. I re-read it to check if it came across as alarmist and Nup...still can't see it. I did say quite clearly for those who have limited faculties that the current waste issues was 'without' nuclear power included. Add nuclear waste from power and the problem is much greater.

As for bending the truth that is a bit rich coming from you. This from the man who believes the Liberal Party can do no wrong and is uncorruptible painting only one side of the political landscape in Australia as either incompetent or unethical. Hardly someone to make judgements on another's integrity. Why would anyone bend the truth on nuclear waste? If it isn't a problem it isn't a problem - why create one where none exists? What is the point. You did not strike me as a conspiracy theorist, and I don't buy it one bit, just another twist of the truth to divert the issue from genuine and sincere debate.

Bazz
There may come a point where some creative soul will come up with a solution to deal with radioactive waste, but until that time, I for one would rather put nuclear on hold. It is about risk management for many people and weighing up whether the gains are worth the potential long term consequences.

SM,
You may be able to refer me to other information but from my understanding all the generation 111 reactors are still only theory or pilot plants. The most favorable is the pebble bed reactor of which China has the working pilot project. In the end it means these safer and more efficient reactors are still in development and are therefore 20 years away. This is not really any different to the renewable industry that are still 20 years off development of truly sustainable systems.
In the end we currently only produce small amounts of highly toxic radioactive waste from the worlds reactors but if the whole world moves to nuclear we will suddenly have vast amounts to deal with until the new fuel types are developed fully and the generation 1 -11 systems are replaced.
This leaves me with my initial problem, how to store this long half life waste safely when we have such a poor understanding of the longer term geological trends of the planet and even less understanding of the effects of long term waste storage on the environment around it. I did over do it initially the high risk life is about 5000 years but the low level risks last much longer.
I still believe it would be much better if we were to approach the issue by first considering ways to seriously reduce our energy consumption. This will require us to make some sacrifices but is not impossible. population control would be a good start and making real environmental consideration when approving development rather than profit first.

Pelican,

Considering that the average household creates about 10 cubic meters of waste per year (compacted) 40 cubic meters of gloves, etc are hardly a national crisis.

"Note the fact that this is without nuclear power and already there are 100 locations around the nation storing radioactive waste. The waste problem will only increase."

This really is a trivial issue, and your tone implies otherwise. That I believe that Labor is a blight on the country, does not mean that what I post is false. You can hardly claim to be impartial either.

The modern methods of treating waste are perfectly capable of reducing the volume and radioactivity by orders of magnitude, but every time I see something published by an anti nuke activist, figures and techniques from the 50s and 60s are referred to.

Nairbe,

The CANDU reactors of which there are about 6 operational and 20 coming on line are capable of using the stored spent fuel rods as primary fuel. However, the preference is to clean up the rods first.