4 ms·

> We also don't have a good place to store the waste. We've got tons of space to store the waste. The country is right in the middle of a tectonic plate, so li

by vacri 10y ago

> We also don't have a good place to store the waste. We've got tons of space to store the waste. The country is right in the middle of a tectonic plate, so little worry about earthquakes, and large swathes of the country are uninhabited by anyone, even mythical 'lost tribes'. Even if nowhere else, we could store waste in the giant area cordoned off for nuclear testing in the '50s. In my opinion, it's hard to find somewhere better suited for storing nuclear waste than 'somewhere in Australia'. Stable, first-world government, a fair few places where we can put it where even leaks wouldn't be a problem, skilled populace, etc etc. In any case, it looks like they're discussing it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/should-south-australia-be-storing-nuclear-waste-above-ground/8003156 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/should-south-australia...

Jedd 10y ago
> In my opinion, it's hard to find somewhere better suited for storing nuclear waste than 'somewhere in Australia'. This makes sense only if your starting position is that creating nuclear waste makes sense. > Stable, first-world government, a fair few places where we can put it where even leaks wouldn't be a problem, skilled populace, etc etc. How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-world government?
- vacri 10y ago
  AU has had a stable government since it started at Federation, and it's had a first-world government since the definition of 'first-world' started in the '40s. There are few countries as stable as AU has been. > This makes sense only if your starting position is that creating nuclear waste makes sense. The waste is being created, regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense. You can pretend that there's some fantasy world where there's no nuclear waste, but in the meantime here in the real world, there is such stuff and it needs to be managed.
  - Jedd 10y ago
    You missed the point of my questions: > How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? > How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-world government? Federation was (to a rounding error) a century ago. Some would argue that it's been stable since then -- I'd argue it hasn't, but the boom/bust left/right vacillation so common in western ersatz democracies evidently is what counts as stable these days. It's kind of besides the point, though, since it's a comparative exercise. How long does nuclear fission waste need to be managed, and how does that compare to 'around a hundred years'? You also make a less than compelling case that we have no choice but to have waste from nuclear fission -- we have plenty of options that don't involve nuclear fission. Consider, for example, the fact that Australia has no nuclear fission plants generating electricity.
    - Pxtl 10y ago
      But it is burning coal, which is far worse at this point. That's what I'm getting at - Australia is uniquely well equipped for nuclear power and has not substantial begun moving away from fossil fuels. If solar is cheaper than nuclear, then by all means build that. But if not? Why not move to nuclear energy?
      - Jedd 10y ago
        Yes, I pointed out that AU has a regrettable fixation with digging up and burning coal. But just because we have access to relatively cheap Uranium doesn't mean we should be digging it up and processing it. One of the reasons I rail against the suggestion that AU has a 'stable long term government' (ie. that could be said to be sufficiently grown up to handle fissile waste) is that right now that same government is very publicly committed to fossil fuels, despite the leader of same being on record only a few years ago asserting - loud and wide - that green energy should be our priority, and we should be moving away from fossil fuels. Append usual concerns about the various people involved in getting us to, and then maintaining, this unfortunate situation.

by vacri 10y ago

Jedd 10y ago

> In my opinion, it's hard to find somewhere better suited for storing nuclear waste than 'somewhere in Australia'. This makes sense only if your starting position is that creating nuclear waste makes sense. > Stable, first-world government, a fair few places where we can put it where even leaks wouldn't be a problem, skilled populace, etc etc. How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-world government?

vacri 10y ago
AU has had a stable government since it started at Federation, and it's had a first-world government since the definition of 'first-world' started in the '40s. There are few countries as stable as AU has been. > This makes sense only if your starting position is that creating nuclear waste makes sense. The waste is being created, regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense. You can pretend that there's some fantasy world where there's no nuclear waste, but in the meantime here in the real world, there is such stuff and it needs to be managed.
- Jedd 10y ago
  You missed the point of my questions: > How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? > How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-world government? Federation was (to a rounding error) a century ago. Some would argue that it's been stable since then -- I'd argue it hasn't, but the boom/bust left/right vacillation so common in western ersatz democracies evidently is what counts as stable these days. It's kind of besides the point, though, since it's a comparative exercise. How long does nuclear fission waste need to be managed, and how does that compare to 'around a hundred years'? You also make a less than compelling case that we have no choice but to have waste from nuclear fission -- we have plenty of options that don't involve nuclear fission. Consider, for example, the fact that Australia has no nuclear fission plants generating electricity.
  - Pxtl 10y ago
    But it is burning coal, which is far worse at this point. That's what I'm getting at - Australia is uniquely well equipped for nuclear power and has not substantial begun moving away from fossil fuels. If solar is cheaper than nuclear, then by all means build that. But if not? Why not move to nuclear energy?
    - Jedd 10y ago
      Yes, I pointed out that AU has a regrettable fixation with digging up and burning coal. But just because we have access to relatively cheap Uranium doesn't mean we should be digging it up and processing it. One of the reasons I rail against the suggestion that AU has a 'stable long term government' (ie. that could be said to be sufficiently grown up to handle fissile waste) is that right now that same government is very publicly committed to fossil fuels, despite the leader of same being on record only a few years ago asserting - loud and wide - that green energy should be our priority, and we should be moving away from fossil fuels. Append usual concerns about the various people involved in getting us to, and then maintaining, this unfortunate situation.