[ovenco]

Storing processed nuclear waste in a suburb of Sydney sounds mad, but it actually may not be such a bad idea. If only a rational discussion could be had on the matter.

More...

[Siliespiriulk]

Rational discussion on all matters nuclear in this country? Thats unpossible.

[GeraldCortis]

Rational discussion on all matters nuclear in this country? Thats unpossible.

well, not everywhere.. Soil erosion is measured by how much radioactive dust is missing.

[PypeMaypetasy]

The Sydney basin is many KM thick stable sandstone. Drill a hole >1500m deep, glassify the waste and store it in the sandstone. concrete over the fill. You know it makes sense.

[Siliespiriulk]

Well almost all of it makes sense. Expect though the NIMBYs will go ballistic. For instance when I was at Lucas Heights, I can remember lots of complaints about it from Menai residents. They did seem to forget however, that most of them moved there well after the reactors were built.

[OGOGOogoloshennya]

Sure it makes sense to store nuclear waste on site given the inherent problems moving it. But it only makes sense if the site makes sense in the first place.
Lucas Heights is a poor site for a reactor and isotope facility. By being on the south western edge of Sydney if there was a release of radioactive gases the prevailing winds being commonly from the south west would likely blow most waste over Sydney.

If the leak is into the nearby water courses, the waste washes out over southern Sydney beaches like Cronulla. So for me the basic issue is the one no-one talks about. Why did they build the new reactor on the old site given the urban encroachment well within all original exclusion zones? Second question, why did they get an Argentine company to build the reactor given their poor track record. Part of the contract stated that all new waste is to be returned to Argentina. Old waste was contracted to go to France. In both cases there are contracts that will need to be broken.

So sure talk about why on site is better than waste transport, but why ignore more important questions?

[Siliespiriulk]

Given that the Argentine bid still had to meet ARPANSAs standards the point about it being an Argentine reactor is moot. Secondly, I don't think they are talking about reactor waste, so much as other low level and intermediate wastes, the reactor wastes will still have to go to Argentina etc.

[OGOGOogoloshennya]

Given that the Argentine bid still had to meet ARPANSAs standards the point about it being an Argentine reactor is moot. Secondly, I don't think they are talking about reactor waste, so much as other low level and intermediate wastes, the reactor wastes will still have to go to Argentina etc.

Why not talk about reactor waste? I thought that was the whole point. It is reactor waste that is a significant part of the issue of storage, being high level waste. Medium and low level waste has always been stored at Lucas Heights. Surely the discussion is as much about where all waste is stored versus transport. So transporting old fuel rods to France or new ones to Argentina is a significant part of the debate surely.

[Siliespiriulk]

I suppose the discussion should also take place in terms of future planning as well if we start going nuclear power.

[OGOGOogoloshennya]

I suppose the discussion should also take place in terms of future planning as well if we start going nuclear power.

It is vital to sort out the best storage methodology for sure because nuclear power is in the mix in other countries if not eventually Australia. . The argument as I see it is storage on site danger compared to transport danger. This raises the issue of deliberate theft or terrorist type strikes on material as it is being transported versus potnetial danger if waste is stored on site. The recent Fukushima situation shows that having cooling pond above a reactor that has lost cooling control is a good reason not to store on site in that manner.

My personal opinion is that on site is likely to be safest all things considered. Obviously geographical stability, socio political stability, on site safety and backup systems etc. Moving waste around the world seems folly to me.

[Butiqueso]

It is vital to sort out the best storage methodology for sure because nuclear power is in the mix in other countries if not eventually Australia. . The argument as I see it is storage on site danger compared to transport danger. This raises the issue of deliberate theft or terrorist type strikes on material as it is being transported versus potnetial danger if waste is stored on site. The recent Fukushima situation shows that having cooling pond above a reactor that has lost cooling control is a good reason not to store on site in that manner.

My personal opinion is that on site is likely to be safest all things considered. Obviously geographical stability, socio political stability, on site safety and backup systems etc. Moving waste around the world seems folly to me.

Farnsworth said it for me . pretty much what friend who works (ed?) there and lived close by explained.

[GeraldCortis]

Moving waste around the world seems folly to me. highlighted.

[PlayboyAtWork]

Given that the Argentine bid still had to meet ARPANSAs standards the point about it being an Argentine reactor is moot. Secondly, I don't think they are talking about reactor waste, so much as other low level and intermediate wastes, the reactor wastes will still have to go to Argentina etc.

The waste from the OPAL reactor will go to the USA for permanent storage:

http://www.ansto.gov.au/__data/asset...Spent_Fuel.pdf