Nuclear Power and Australia... Should they be friends?

[S200]

Ok, so after watching a few Ted talks, and also having been an advocate for ages, I was wondering. What does the general populace of AtarNotesia think?
Should Australia use Nuclear power?


I personally, as said before, am a big advocate. My extension research assignment in Year 6 was Fukushima. In Year 9 Geography I did Chernobyl. Neither of these diverted me. I really think that Australia should be using Nuclear Power, and I am almost positive that more than half the users on here would agree.

Now, please go ahead and vote, and comment if you wish, BEFORE clicking the spoiler.

This is to be clicked AFTER voting has taken place

Okay. So here is the semi-ultimate resource load of things on Nuclear Power in the 21st Century and also Wikipedia's luverly and reliable page on Nuclear in Australia.
1.) Former Anti-Nuclear protagonist and strong Environmentalist
2.) The Norwegian Girl
3.) Thorium Discussion (furthering on from The Norwegian Girl) mainly focused on the USA and Lunar Communities.
4.) And The Norwegian Dude, also on Thorium
5.) Previous AtarNotes discussion A and B (which turned into a discussion on Nuclear powered spacecraft...)

[Bri MT]

I selected "other" because although I'm on the "yes" side, I don't think it's as simple as "of course"

[S200]

I selected "other" because although I'm on the "yes" side, I don't think it's as simple as "of course"

What do you think is the main issue standing between us and Nuclear power?

[Lear]

I am not even close to knowledgeable on nuclear power, but one issue that comes to my mind is the storage of nuclear waste. These things can be dangerous for a very very long time and storing it is a big issue. Even if we store it deep under ground with hundreds of warning signs and what not, what is stopping a person 10000 years from now who has no sense of our language or diagrams to dig up this waste and potentially harm many.  https://youtu.be/uU3kLBo_ruo. I found this video quite interesting.

[Bri MT]

What do you think is the main issue standing between us and Nuclear power?

I agree with Lear that the waste storage is a huge issue.

Even with reprocessing there will inevitably be a lot of dangerous waste produced, and each time we try to find a permanent storage site in Australia people living near there reject the idea

[vox nihili]

I'm not really sure where I stand because I really don't know nearly enough, but it's always struck me as really weird that Australia doesn't have more nuclear energy. Perhaps more than any other country we have the resources—and the space—to deal with nuclear power but it's never really been proposed as a legitimate idea, except in SA recently (since been a govt change so that's fallen flat).

[Lear]

Launching nuclear waste into space is a viable idea. Especially considering how reusable rockets are becoming more more and prominent (Space X, Blue origin etc)

[Calebark]

Launching nuclear waste into space is a viable idea. Especially considering how reusable rockets are becoming more more and prominent (Space X, Blue origin etc)

Launching stuff into space is expensive.  Really, really expensive. Something like $30 per gram. I don't think it'd be viable.

[Sine]

Launching nuclear waste into space is a viable idea. Especially considering how reusable rockets are becoming more more and prominent (Space X, Blue origin etc)

I don't think it is ethical to send nuclear waste in space

[vox nihili]

I don't think it is ethical to send nuclear waste in space

Why?

[EEEEEEP]

I don't think it is ethical to send nuclear waste in space

On what grounds is it not ethical?

What living beings live in space? Whom are harmed?

Launching nuclear waste into space is a viable idea. Especially considering how reusable rockets are becoming more more and prominent (Space X, Blue origin etc)

Impossible suggestion atm

It costs $62 million per flight for space X, that isn't cheap

[Lear]

On what grounds is it not ethical?

What living beings live in space? Whom are harmed?
Impossible suggestion atm

It costs $62 million per flight for space X, that isn't cheap

I think even if we manage to  harm a LIVING BEING in space we would be pretty excited. I mean cmon aliens. But considering how vast space is it is unlikely this waste will be ever found. Just like Elon Musk’s Tesla.

[S200]

Quote from Lear and how to answer it

I am not even close to knowledgeable on nuclear power, but one issue that comes to my mind is the storage of nuclear waste. These things can be dangerous for a very very long time and storing it is a big issue. Even if we store it deep under ground with hundreds of warning signs and what not, what is stopping a person 10000 years from now who has no sense of our language or diagrams to dig up this waste and potentially harm many.  https://youtu.be/uU3kLBo_ruo. I found this video quite interesting.

With molten sand reactors, waste from modern reactors like those in France and America is used as part of the Fuel cycle, and handily destroyed.
i.e: No more hella dangerous Plutonium 239... well, very little, anyway....
If we use these molten sand reactors fueled with thorium 232, there is a much lower chance of generating Transuranic waste, as the thorium fuel cycle ends with Uranium 233, which has a neutron capture ratio of 1:12, compared with U235's 1:6 or Pu239's 1:3.
The more neutrons that are captured, the greater the number of reactions, and the greater overall efficiency of the reactor.
The video is extremely interesting and poses a good question. The feasibility of none of the five UN languages being spoken in 10000 years does pose an issue, but I think that sufficient signage of skulls and similar should suffice. I personally don't see any issue with the nuclear waste being here if another species happened to colonise this planet once the humans are all gone. If they are keen to come here, they can take the good with the bad...

Nuclear in Australia

I'm not really sure where I stand because I really don't know nearly enough, but it's always struck me as really weird that Australia doesn't have more nuclear energy. Perhaps more than any other country we have the resources—and the space—to deal with nuclear power but it's never really been proposed as a legitimate idea, except in SA recently (since been a govt change so that's fallen flat).

Well, Nuclear power for Australia has been proposed for the last ~20 years, (mainly in SA, yes) but since it first started popping up in the 70's, it had no chance. Also around that time the Nuclear tests at Maralinga were exposed, along with the Vixen B tests. Nuclear was pretty doomed around that time...
But yeah, we certainly have the space to spare. Also, we could run all the current Uranium reactors for >100 years just off what we have in Australia. Oh, and don't forget my friend thorium.. We have the world's third largest reserve of this as well!

What were the Maralinga Tests?

Maralinga SA was a portion of land loaned by Menzies' government to the British government so they could stay up to date on the Nuclear arms race. More than 10 actual Nuclear devices were detonated in this area.

On top of these "main tests" were the Vixen B tests. These were done to determine the fallout if a nuclear device was destroyed in a non-nuclear explosion. They smartly blew up a shitload (22kg) of radioactive Pu239 with a bigger shitload of TNT. On a windy day. Hence, bloody massive spread and pretty much no cleanup done at the time.

Waste Disposal

Launching nuclear waste into space is a viable idea. Especially considering how reusable rockets are becoming more more and prominent (Space X, Blue origin etc)

I am with Caleb and E6P. It's ridiculously expensive, and unless someone redevelops Project Orion (which is a debate by itself - NASA may be retrying it), it is highly impractical and also has a touch of danger. Unless the waste is sent into orbit somewhere around Pluto, the waste could end up orbiting earth as space junk, and if it manages re-entry there is no telling where this could fall.The chances of this actually happening?

Ok, the factorial was just for fun, but what I'm saying is that the chance is still there, no matter how small.
I think that the storage Fac in Finland (Lear's post) has potential, as well as the Yucca Mountain one in the US that has been pretty knocked about in Congress and in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I think that this is the best thing to do... Bury it deeeeeeeeeep.

Tl:Dr?

Basically, the waste can be majorly reduced by using thorium Molten Sand reactors.
The remaining waste? Bury Deep.

[Bri MT]

I don't think it is ethical to send nuclear waste in space

This kind of reminds me of when people used to just chuck junk in the ocean.

Even if it was economically viable I would be very cautious about this idea because there is a lot that we don't understand and whatever problems we don't foresee could stick around for a long time.