The mining of uranium and the disposal of spent fuel are the largest components of the costs in the uranium fuel cycle.
The disposal of long-lived radioactive waste within Australia could be one of the single biggest contributions we can make to the safety of our region, and even the world.
Domestically, Australia produces about 45 cubic metres - three truckloads - per year of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes. Much of this material is produced in the research reactor at Lucas Heights, then used at hospitals, industrial sites and laboratories around the country.
There are about 3,700 cubic metres of low-level waste stored at over a hundred sites around Australia. Over half of the material is lightly-contaminated soil from CSIRO mineral processing research. In addition there are about 500 cubic metres of long-lived intermediate level waste.
But having dispersed storage is not considered a suitable long-term strategy for the safe storage of waste. So the Federal Government has proposed a consolidation to a single repository site.
The plan is for a disposal area about 100 metres square within a two square kilometres area.
Low-level and short-lived intermediate level wastes would be disposed of in a shallow, engineered repository designed to contain the material and allow it to decay safely to background levels.
Intermediate-level wastes with lifetimes of greater than 30 years would be stored above ground in a facility designed to hold them secure for an extended period and to shield their radiation until a geological repository is eventually established, or alternative arrangements made.
Contrary to popular belief, this proposal is not about the ultimate disposal of high-level radioactive waste from the spent fuel of reactors.
The high level wastes produced by nuclear power stations are not yet a concern. If we are lucky we might have two operating nuclear power stations within 20 years. But we would not then be worrying about waste from them for another 50 years.
Even so, it may be with cheap coal and carbon dioxide burial - what we grandly call geosequestration - that we find conventional power plants are the better buy.
Currently, the concern is about the disposal of industrial waste, an area where governments have had great difficulties in finding acceptable solutions.
So what is the fuss about?
There is a worry about instability caused by earthquakes. Helen Caldicott in ABC News Opinion on Monday expressed concern that the Federal Government's preferred site for a waste dump experienced recently a quake measuring 2.5 on the Richter scale.
However, an earthquake of this magnitude is classified as detectable but generally not felt. There are about 1,000 earthquakes of this intensity each day all over the earth. It might not even cause a ripple in your café latte.
Enrichment and reprocessing may provide further business opportunities. In this area, Australian scientists have made major technical contributions. But firms require access to large amounts of capital to pursue their development. None of our major mining or energy companies has expressed, at least recently, any desire to enter these markets.
The mining of uranium and the disposal of spent fuel are the largest components of the costs in the uranium fuel cycle. Australia could benefit from providing both services.
Indeed, there could be significant regional demand. Thailand, China and India might find an Australian waste storage facility extremely attractive. Countries that are genuinely earthquake prone, as Japan and Indonesia are, would no doubt welcome an opportunity even more.
Australia provides its reputation, its technical expertise and its high-quality infrastructure for all manner of services to Asia-Pacific region. We should not be blind to the potential of a waste storage facility.
-------------------------
This piece was first published by ABC Online and is republished here with permission from the author. Tom Quirk is a member of the board of the Institute of Public Affairs and chairman of Virax Holdings Ltd, a biotechnology company. He is a nuclear physicist by original training.
hey. how u doin?
A most informative dummy spit, Ender. You originally claimed that nuclear waste would be abandoned once it was deposited. When it was pointed out that simple funds management tools are already more than capable of funding the monitoring and management of such an on-going venture, you claimed that mankind has yet to demonstrate the capacity to achieve such a long term obligation.
When numerous examples were provided of monasteries, universities, family dynasties and government entities that have maintained functional and organisational integrity for well over 500 to 1000 years, you sought to limit the discussion to only those types of entities that supported your perception.
When the management tools and principles of successful long term funding endowments, tied to research activity, were explained you tried to claim that such private funding was some sort of abuse of the public purse. And you also wrongly claimed that the consumers of nuclear energy would somehow be forced to fund something they did not agree with when they all have the choice of turning off the switch or using an alternate supply.
You also selectively quoted from a source in a way that directly contradicted the meaning conveyed by the author. The author mentioned the impossibility of being absolutely certain of all future outcomes, but he did this to highlight the importance of flexible planning so that future contingencies could be managed. You tried to apply the absence of absolute certainty as a pretext to prevent any action at all.
And as the tenuousness of your position became clearer you reverted to pedantic questions over the distinction between cement and concrete. And you did so in a context of increasingly shrill insult and abuse mixed with emotive risk associations between you granddaughter and indeterminate harm.
To top it all off you then attempted to intimidate me with pathetic threats of expulsion from the blog for some undefined faux pas. Your record speaks for itself, Ender. The entire context is there on public record for discerning readers to form their own conclusions.
I can live with my words being attached to a real person called Ian Mott. An alias called Ender is obviously reluctant to do the same. So run along now, punk, you have served your purpose.
Ian Mott - Well at least you have shown yourself in your true colors. Diagnosing someone over an internet conversation is showing hubris of a simply staggering nature. Turning on a reasonable request to be civil should show the rest of the people on this blog what a complete asshole you really are. Actually I do not need to complain as you have done quite enough on your own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete
"Concrete is a construction material that consists of cement (commonly Portland cement), aggregate (generally gravel and sand), water and admixtures."
Concrete is the material that is made from cement and aggregate. It leaks despite your shouting.
"So I am terribly sorry if this strikes a bit too close to the bone, Ender, but"
When someone puts "but" in a sentence that means that the previous statement is disregarded and the next part is what you really meant to say. No you are not sorry, you are just an arrogant bully that thinks abuse makes up for facts, so why did you bother saying it. I hope beyond hope that you do not have a family because their life must be a secret hell.
"As I have stated before, Ender, your thought processes, as exhibited by the statements you make on this blog, often make cognitive jumps that are quite similar to those made by many victims of substance abuse."
No despite the sad, rigid and small world that you live in people are quite capable of making cognitive jumps without substances - it is called imagination and the fact that you lack this is quite simply sad and I pity you.
I see now that you are simply unable to imagine a world without the government of Australia ruling and our society not being here. In Mott world what is present now will always be forever and ever. I am sure Ian Mott in late Rome would have said the same thing right up until the sack because he is unable to think that there could be anything different. Also it is quite sad that if someone can imagine that there might be the possibility of something different in 500 years then automatically they must be on something - amazing!!!! Anybody that thinks different to Ian Mott must be on drugs because Ian Mott is right.
I can also see now why you are so for ANYTHING that perpetuates this cosy little world where you feel safe and warm all tucked in with your nuclear power. The big scary world of intermittant renewables must be a real threat to one such as yourself.
I will just ignore your comments until you apologise like a normal civil person would.
Well gosh, Ender complains, people get banned, wake in fright. Who the hell do you think you are?
And what a pathetic pitch on the universities. It is a fact that education levels were highest amongst the most economically advanced nations. Your reference to the Alexandria library as a place of learning does not qualify it as a university. You claimed there were "thousands and thousands" of universities that have come and gone over a period when they simply did not exist in those numbers.
You then launch on a boorish distraction on the distinction between concrete and cement. You provide quotes that emphasis that concrete can break down but neglect to point out that in the absence of water to transport any resulting release there is zero risk of dispersal.
You again dredge up this absurd notion that consumers will somehow be forced to use and pay for power generated by nuclear processes. They all have a choice.
As I have stated before, Ender, your thought processes, as exhibited by the statements you make on this blog, often make cognitive jumps that are quite similar to those made by many victims of substance abuse. This may just be coincidence but I have lived with such people and am sensitive to the symptoms. And I certainly have no intention of allowing such impaired cognitive processes to masquerade as the reasonable deliberations of healthy people, especially when that cohort forms a vocal, minority electoral block on matters of major community interest.
So I am terribly sorry if this strikes a bit too close to the bone, Ender, but this is a simple statement of my perception of your comments. It is not intended as any insult but if you feel offended by this then it is your right to complain. But you should also bear in mind that, in any question of banning someone, the principles of natural justice would certainly call for your past medical history to be considered in full.
Ian Mott - "Either way, your DNA will probably have long since died out from sequential, intergenerational substance abuse so you ...."
BTW just a gentle warning - keep carrying on about substance abuse and I WILL complain and have you removed or banned. I have an extremely sore point with this that I will not bore you with however, I am sure that it is sufficient to point out that I find it extremely offensive and upsetting. So knock it off.