Pro until better alternatives.

^^^ +1.

Last time the idea of burying nuclear waste in Australia was touted, the pathetic greens mounted an emotive campaign against it.
Forgetting that over 1km down in rock, in the most geologically stable place going, 2000km from civilisation, is so damn remote and that any problem is 1 in a million. Then even if that 1 in a million happens, even a major spill would not affect us.

We need to mine it and take the waste back and charge a fortune.

sounds good ..... but not in my back yard !! has to be near the sea for cooling . Who wants one at their favorite beach ?

Much like the crew above, pro nuke, and bury the leftovers someplace Maralinga-ish.

But - really would prefer the safer version of nuke power - Thorium instead of Uranium.

So, thorium nuke for baseload, with solar / wind etc for as much as they can supply.


stephen

How do you propose getting the waste to "Maralinga-ish" sites sn? Road? Rail? Hmnn, just a bit risky...

I know it's gone off the mainstream radar, but ****ushima is still alive and pumping crap into the Pacific. Then there's the stories you're not hearing about the problems in the US. Shame the fracking is causing so many earthquakes, not such a stable environment for the aging nuclear reactors.

ThinkaBowtit said..
How do you propose getting the waste to "Maralinga-ish" sites sn? Road? Rail? Hmnn, just a bit risky...

Thorium generated power is supposed to be "a lot safer" than uranium, partly because thorium waste has a much shorter half life [or something like that]
Not needing to be stored for umpteen gazillion years like uranium based waste.
IIRC, thorium waste is ok after 150ish years - which we have the technology to handle.

The main reason the nuclear energy industry went for uranium, was that assisted in supplying materials for making A bombs.

As for transporting the stuff - bung it on either rail or truck in the containers designed for carrying nuke waste.
These things were tested by chucking out the back of aircraft, ramming with locomotives, and being blown up.
They passed all the tests.

If you follow the rules and procedures - carrying D.G. is no great deal.


stephen

Thorium is the new nuke pipe dream, not really been done successfully, and the figures don't really stack up for it to be viable.
eg
independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype,4919

Speaking of figures not stacking up, same goes for nuclear power in general. Too expensive to bother with.

Not to mention the nimby factor- might have stood a chance of joe public forgetting Chernobyl but ****ushima's just killed that chance.

The future is most likely small scale photovoltaic (solar) generation, battery storage, network smart micro-grids with neighbors selling excess to each other during peaks. Backed up by solar thermal which yes works at night and therefore ticks the magic 'baseload' box.

https://www.solarpowerservices.com.au/news/670-solar-thermal-energy

Has anyone done the sums of power loss if the conductor material were solid silver?

It's seen as a valuable commodity, and today, with all the CT's out there, there's probably tons of the stuff in people's cellars etc

Bigger picture to my mind is, turn off the AC and put a jumper on, or turn off the AC and take your jumper off.

That in itself would reduce demand hugely.

We could learn a thing or two from our nearest neighbours. At least they are giving it a damn good go, and have been since, oh before the turn of the century. The last century...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_Zealand

I'm on the no camp.
Nuclear waste is not easy to deal with...Not a single permant storage facility worldwide in operation.

Australia is not as geologically stable as people believe. We frequently have earthquakes across the country. A leak could destroy groundwater supplies for hundreds of thousands of years.

We are talking about a by-product that stays dangerous for a period of time we have no experience with. We don't know if we can build something to last that test of time.

That's just the burrying it part.

It needs to actually get out bush first.

The second a solution is found, I'd be very pro.

There's a reason no other country has committed to burying it. Even America after spending billions cancelled their storage facility b

RockyDude said..
Interesting topic.

I watch footage from some of the "horizontal falls" in WA's north, and wonder what could be achievable with tidal power generation.

Consistent as your watch, pedictable results, zero waste/byproducts/emmisions.

Anyone that has seen the mechanical pumping known as "ram pumping", will probably suspect that there are better options out there, yet to be discovered.

Nuclear seems to me like we learned too much too quickly, and too many jumped on the ship before thinking it through.

Incidentally, Wiki suggests that a significant proportion of waste comes from the weapons industry.

Go back to bows and arrows already.

There was a company in Scotland that had, IIRC, a 5MW station providing power to distilleries, utilizing the rise and fall of waves. Some green eco show in the UK had a pair of inventors that made a smaller version on the same principles out of a PVC pipe for a pair of hobo surfers in a caravan. Totally doable, less ugly and intrusive than windmills but I don't know how much loss there'd be transmitting power from the coast inland . . . not a big issue considering the proportion of people who live near the ocean.

Company (wavegen) sold the technology and plants and then died off. Shame.

Google "horizontal falls", and it will become apparent that there is a consistent, reliable, predictable source of energy available.

Both ways by the way, both incoming and outgoing tides.

Greenies aside, "utilising" a naturally occurring fissure to produce energy is going to be unpopular if there is no coin to be made.

In this respect, I understand the bulk of the CT'ers, but for the good of the earth, and humanity, it seems the way to go.

Again, no emissions, no waste, plenty of jobs, ad infinitum.

mineral1 said..
a spot in a very pristine and frequented kite and windsurf location just North of Perth. Government still has it locked down for 'future development'

Probably the same spot that was being considered as the replacement location for the Baldivis explosives reserve.

Govt. were initially looking for a coastal spot where they could have thier own pier for unloading bulk explosives and dangerous goods loaded shipping,
Not sure what the location will be now - sadly, no more messing about with or transporting bulk kaboomy stuff.


stephen

azymuth said..

Dawn Patrol said..
I'm on the no camp.
Nuclear waste is not easy to deal with...Not a single permant storage facility worldwide in operation.

Australia is not as geologically stable as people believe. We frequently have earthquakes across the country. A leak could destroy groundwater supplies for hundreds of thousands of years.

We are talking about a by-product that stays dangerous for a period of time we have no experience with. We don't know if we can build something to last that test of time.

That's just the burrying it part.

It needs to actually get out bush first.

The second a solution is found, I'd be very pro.

There's a reason no other country has committed to burying it. Even America after spending billions cancelled their storage facility b

Have a look at Molten Salt Reactors

Not only do MSRs not have a long term waste issue, they can be used to dispose of current stockpiles of nuclear waste by using those stockpiles as fuel.

Even stockpiles of plutonium can be disposed of this way.

In fact, conventional reactors typically use only 3-to-5% of the available energy in their fuel rods before the fuel rods must be replaced because of cracking.

MSRs can use up most of the rest of the available fuel in these rods to make electricity.

www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

So why the need to bury the waste if it can be used and made safe?

Are they currently using waste to fuel these things?

elbeau said...
The video at the top shows nuclear reactors world wide in the 1980s. There appear to be two in the eastern states of Australia. At 3:40 Apparently

No electricity producing reactors though. Think they're for research and medicine??