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.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“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.”
An of course I assume that Mr Quirk would be quite happy for this waste disposal facility to be in his suburb. However I am sure that he assumes that it will be far away from him making it somebody else’s problem.
Plenty of empty space in Australia, Ender. Plenty of geologically stable empty space in Australia. Plenty of such space not on any water catchment – suface, ground water, or artesian. Pleny of such space near me. Wouldn’t have to be very far from me to be in no-one’s -er- suburb.
Your personal assumptions do not address the problem. Waste has to go somewhere. Right now it is being stored all over the place, including in build up areas. Not on.
Whether Australia gets into reprocessing or accepting waste from other countries are different issues. And I would much prefer Australia keeps burning coal and gas for power than go nuclear. I have doubts about whether Co2 levels significantly drive atmospheric temperatures. But if Co2 levels really were a serious threat, then I would opt for nuclear power.
Helen Mahar – “Plenty of empty space in Australia, Ender. Plenty of geologically stable empty space in Australia. Plenty of such space not on any water catchment – suface, ground water, or artesian. Pleny of such space near me. Wouldn’t have to be very far from me to be in no-one’s -er- suburb.”
So you would be happy to have it built down the street from you? As you say it has to go somewhere – why not your place?
I think we measure distances differently, Ender. You seem to measure in metres. Out here we measure the time it takes to get places. As I said. Plenty of empty space in Australia. I live in it. No need to put the needed low-medium level waste repository closer than 1-2 hours to habitation.
Oh yes, What sreet?
And how many nuclear power reactors does Japan have?
Any one know?
Which of course raises another question. Does Japan have anywhere that is geologically stable, not on a water catchment, and remote from human habitation?
Isn’t it quaint how some people can rave on about having a nuclear waste dump “in their back yard”. As if a single hectare, surrounded by another 199 hectares of buffer, and surrounded by another 200km of gibber plains in every direction is likely to pose any sort of threat to anyone.
Put the stuff in large cement blocks under 30m of sand and clay in the arid zone and there will be zero risk of any seepage because even the 9th decile rainfall events would never percolate that far.
And what, one might ask Ms Caldicott, will large cement blocks actually do in even a Scale 8 earth quake? They will jiggle about in the sand and then sit quietly for the next Scale 8 quake to take place some time in the next millenia. The fact that their position in that sand has shifted by 7 centimetres means absolutely zip.
And are we to worry ourselves sick about intruders? Fat chance. Last time I looked it was pretty hard to disguise a 25 tonne excavator, especially when it has to move 30 metres of overburden in a controlled and monitored site.
This is the classic example of the total severance of any link to reality on the part of those opposed to safe storage.
Come to think of it, I’ll take it at my place, Ender. It might clear out a few dropkick feral neighbours.
I wonder if Ender uses those gas laterns with those cute gas mantles as a light source. Put the new mantle under a scintolometer or spectrometer and you will find out its very, very, radioactive. Didn’t know that, did you Ender. I mean you certainly would not have electricty in your home as it’s based on coal powered generators at Collie, close to you.
Unless you are comfortable being a hypocrit like Carbon Gorilla Foot ALGore.
Go into Forrest Place in Perth and go near the granites buildings – unbelievable amounts of radioactivity can be measured.
And as far as radioactive waste is concerned, er, spent fuel rods really means fuel that has just about run out of steam, hence it’s description “spent” and it’s half-life actually quite short compared to U238 which has a half life of 4,500 million years.
Ender lives somewhere in the WA SW – I hope he dosn’t go near beaches down there because the beach sands are also highly radioactive, as well as all the nice granites that form the pretty rocks down there.
And all he needs is a scintolometer to measure it!
Helen – “I think we measure distances differently, Ender. You seem to measure in metres. Out here we measure the time it takes to get places. As I said. Plenty of empty space in Australia. I live in it. No need to put the needed low-medium level waste repository closer than 1-2 hours to habitation.”
I don’t think we do at all – I live in Perth myself. This article is talking about the disposal of spent fuel. If it is so safe and clean why not have it close? This will be closer for the 5th generation of your family, that I as sure you have signed up, to guard the waste for the required 500 years or so.
Ian Mott – “Isn’t it quaint how some people can rave on about having a nuclear waste dump “in their back yard”. As if a single hectare, surrounded by another 199 hectares of buffer, and surrounded by another 200km of gibber plains in every direction is likely to pose any sort of threat to anyone.
Put the stuff in large cement blocks under 30m of sand and clay in the arid zone and there will be zero risk of any seepage because even the 9th decile rainfall events would never percolate that far. ”
Thats a good idea Ian. After all the plains will be exactly the same for how long? As you always say the climate is changing naturally all the time – how can you ensure that in 500 or 1000 years time that the desert is still the desert?
“Come to think of it, I’ll take it at my place, Ender. It might clear out a few dropkick feral neighbours.”
The same as for Helen – are you prepared to sign up your descendants to guard it. After a few generations they might get a bit annoyed with the drop kick that signed them up to servitude to a granite block. But of course you actually only have to store it until you, Helen and Louis are dead because then it becomes someone else’s problem.
Louis – “And as far as radioactive waste is concerned, er, spent fuel rods really means fuel that has just about run out of steam, hence it’s description “spent” and it’s half-life actually quite short compared to U238 which has a half life of 4,500 million years.”
I see you are as ignorant of the nuclear fuel cycle as you are of climate change. If spent nuclear fuel is so benign why does it have to sit in cooling ponds for years?????? The loss of coolant in these ponds is a major problem as the ‘spent’ nuclear fuel can melt down without the moderating and cooling water.
Try this:
http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
“Didn’t know that, did you Ender. I mean you certainly would not have electricty in your home as it’s based on coal powered generators at Collie, close to you.”
Really? I don’t however make my family suffer for my convictions. We do however use vastly less water and electricity than average as we have been diligent in saving power and water. You can still have technology without nuclear power if you are prepared to meet renewables half way. Try again Louis with some real information this time. Try comparing rock with tailings from uranium mines for instance.
‘Plenty of empty space in Australia’ – Helen Mahar
It may be empty but isn’t that space owned by the Aboriginal nation?.. who might want a say in whether or not it becomes a national / international toxic waste dump?..
Even when land has no mineral, farming or property value, someone will still think it is worth stealing….
‘Seems that everywhere I stand
I`m always on white man`s land’
– Rick Medlocke (Sioux nation)
Mind you, its not often you hear the citizen of a developed nation actually suggesting turning parts of their nation into a toxic waste dump is a great idea…. Ya can’t see it, so how dangerous can radiation really be eh?… the pins and needles sensation and the strange taste of metal will probably clear up anyway…
Ender,
Tailings from uranium mines are actually the crushed and processed rock from which all the radioactive stuff has been removed. This is the whole purpose of mining and metallurgical extraction. The whole idea is to extract the uranium out of the rock.
So the tailings are somewhat depleted in uranium.
Well they had better be if the mining engineers and metallurgists are doing their jobs.
Linking to the Uranium site is interesting – you fail to quote which part of that large web page that actually supports your argument. Meaning you probably have not read it.
And tell me why it is OK for the Franch and Japanese to have the majority of their electrical power generation supplied by nuclear reactors too Ender. I don’t see you and your matest protesting at the French or Japanese Embassies for this heresy.
Louis – “Tailings from uranium mines are actually the crushed and processed rock from which all the radioactive stuff has been removed. This is the whole purpose of mining and metallurgical extraction. The whole idea is to extract the uranium out of the rock.
So the tailings are somewhat depleted in uranium.”
From the reference that you allege that I have not read:
“The tailings are around ten times more radioactive than typical granites, such as used on city buildings. If someone were to live continuously on top of the Ranger tailings they would receive about double their normal radiation dose from the actual tailings (ie they would triple their received dose).”
and
“About 25 tonnes of spent fuel is taken each year from the core of a l000 MWe nuclear reactor. The spent fuel can be regarded entirely as waste (as, for 40% of the world¹s output, in USA and Canada), or it can be reprocessed (as in Europe). Whichever option is chosen, the spent fuel is first stored for several years under water in large cooling ponds at the reactor site. The concrete ponds and the water in them provide radiation protection, while removing the heat generated during radioactive decay.”
“And tell me why it is OK for the Franch and Japanese to have the majority of their electrical power generation supplied by nuclear reactors too Ender. I don’t see you and your matest protesting at the French or Japanese Embassies for this heresy.”
Its not OK – never said it was however pointing to a state run socialist scheme like the French nuclear power industry is paradoxical for a libertarian such as yourself. BTW French nuclear power only works because of peaking power sourced from other counties like Sweden. Japan nuclear power is less than France at 30% which is not most of their power at all.
I have been talking about low and intermediate level waste, of which there is about 3,700 tonnes in Australia, stored at over 100 sites around the country. It is currently “down the street” or across a couple of suburbs from many Australians.
It would seem that collecting it all up and storing it somewhere remote, in a storage area of 1 ha, inside a 200 ha security paddock, would be an unacceptably dangerous thing to do.
So let’s just leave the stuff where it is, or better still, collect it all up and store it at an existing dump.
Now what town or city want’s to volunteer?
Poor Ender, you really have a tenuous grasp of even the most rudimentary aspects of the issue, don’t you.
It has always been a core assumption in the costings of such multigenerational tasks like waste storage that the price paid for the storage includes sufficient additional money to fund the work in perpetuity.
The actual amount would vary depending on what interest rate is used for the calculation. For example, if the annual cost of monitoring a site was $100,000 then it would only require $1,060,000 invested at 7% interest to fund that task for the next 20 years. It would only require $1,241,000 to fund the task for 30 years and only $1,404,000 to do the job for 60 years.
And as you can see, the second 30 years can be fully funded for only $163,000 more. In a nutshell, at 7% interest, an outlay can be funded in perpetuity for about 15 times the annual cost.
If you were a little further up the economic food chain we could factor in a range of inflation rates and other variables but this is not necessary in this instance.
But suffice to say, my great-great-grandchildren would continue to thank me for setting up a system where they get an above average income (in perpetuity) for drinking smoothies, reading good books, and playing tennis with their friends on the court that seals a bunch of cement blocks in sand, some 30, 50, or even 100 metres below them.
And if the climate changes and the rainfall increases, all they need to do is cover an additional hectare (a 21m wide strip around the existing one) and drain that runoff into a safe storage for subsequent sale or to maintain their own private waterfront view.
Funny how some people only see problems while others see opportunities.
Ian Mott – “And as you can see, the second 30 years can be fully funded for only $163,000 more. In a nutshell, at 7% interest, an outlay can be funded in perpetuity for about 15 times the annual cost.”
Yes and my funds invested it the First Bank of Rome 2000 years ago are still going well. Hang on Rome has fallen? – nooooooooooooooo!!!!
“Poor Ender, you really have a tenuous grasp of even the most rudimentary aspects of the issue, don’t you.”
Perhaps more thinking and less insults would be the order of the day.
At least a third of the continent is in what we call stable cratonic areas ie. hav’nt moved a muscle in over a billion years. Ender, we wouldn’t put a dump in a suburb, we would locate it in the middle of nowhere in stable cratonic Australia. Maybe use an old mine underground??
Why not? It is stable! And isn’t going to upset anyone out in the sticks! Easy. And would make heaps of $ if we took stuff from Japan, US etc. Easy.
Dear Lemna
Where can I find the aboriginal nation?
Blair
Mick S – “Why not? It is stable! And isn’t going to upset anyone out in the sticks! Easy. And would make heaps of $ if we took stuff from Japan, US etc. Easy.”
If it so stable why put it in the sticks? If you have to pay guards etc it would make more sense to locate it near your place for instance.
“Ender, we wouldn’t put a dump in a suburb, we would locate it in the middle of nowhere in stable cratonic Australia. Maybe use an old mine underground??”
Mines have water – water leaches radioactive nucleides out of even the most stable waste after long enough. Can we test the various disposal methods for a thousand years before using them? I don’t think so.
Here is a good point – since we mine and extract the uranium out of the ground, then put it into a reactor to produce energy, then there remains a hole in the ground from where it was extracted. Since the radiation isn’t greater than what it was before, (it got converted to energy), then obviously we could put it back into the ground from whence it came.
And make a motza from it by demanding payment for burying it.
As for radioactive nucliedes in ground water – heavens to murkatroyd Ender, Kakadu has been contaiminating the drainage systems for millions of years! It’s natural! How do you think we found the uranium deposit? By the anomalous uranium in the ground water.
Think about it Ender, it’s pre human pollution by nature that enabled us to locate these deposits. But it’s not pollution be definition – only humans are suppose to pollute.
So putting something back into the ground that is less radioactive than what it was when it came out seems a useful thing to do.
Ender
How long is a bit of radioactive pollution?
The nuke tests in SA for example. All good after 50 years.
“Mines have water – water leaches radioactive nucleides out of even the most stable waste after long enough.”
You are not going to stuff the waste underground leaching crap everywhere like some kind of Hollywood movie! Store it in safe containers – sealed in concrete? and placed 500m underground at the base of some stope/drive in a stable environment – like an old mine!
is there such thing as a garbiologist
Louis Hissink – “Here is a good point – since we mine and extract the uranium out of the ground, then put it into a reactor to produce energy,”
So what they just shovel in uranium oxide into a nuclear reactor and out comes energy?????
Are you truly this ignorant or is this just one of your little games?
Mick S – “The nuke tests in SA for example. All good after 50 years.
“Mines have water – water leaches radioactive nucleides out of even the most stable waste after long enough.”
You are not going to stuff the waste underground leaching crap everywhere like some kind of Hollywood movie! Store it in safe containers – sealed in concrete? and placed 500m underground at the base of some stope/drive in a stable environment – like an old mine!”
A nuclear reactor produces 30t of spent nuclear fuel per year on average. A weapons test is likely to be a few kilograms at best. The cleanup operation at Maralinga was bad enough with thousands of tons of topsoil required to be buried.
Spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive and contains elements such as plutonium that did not exist in nature before nuclear power. Heat and radiation change the properties of materials over time. You suggestion is fine as long as in, say 1000 years, the container that you thought was safe has been corroded and allows the radioactive materials to leach out. Can you guarantee that all the containers you have used are safe for this time scale? Additionally over the timescales that some of the radioisotopes are dangerous (10 000 years or more) the landscape and water flows can change so what you thought was a nice dry repository can become the middle of a river.
Ender, I understand your argument here. However, I think people are a little more thoughtful than that – “…say 1000 years, the container that you thought was safe has been corroded and allows the radioactive materials to leach out. Can you guarantee that all the containers you have used are safe for this time scale? Additionally over the timescales that some of the radioisotopes are dangerous (10 000 years or more) the landscape and water flows can change so what you thought was a nice dry repository can become the middle of a river” Is there any reason why my idea of sealing the waste in an abandoned stable mine could not be monitored to some degree? (Included in the price paid by the waste creator of course)
Ender’s mind only proceeds until he can find the next pretext for doing nothing and continues to demonstrate his economic ignorance.
Why on earth would anyone place all their funds in just one institution for a long term project like waste storage? Google “portfolio risk” and get your head around weighted investments in a range of stocks, fixed interest, hedge funds, property etc, in a range of currencies, and then charge for the service on a 5% rate of return (20 times annual increment) and continually reinvest any additional returns above that rate.
Simple, year 11 economics, Ender.
And why on earth would one need to guarantee the storage medium will last for 1000 years? Who knows what additional technology will be around in 30 years, let alone 1000. There may even be a profitable use for such waste in a decade or two which may render any 1000 year guarantee completely redundant.
It is downright stupid to assume that our current storage technology is the best and cheapest there is, or will be. And it abolutely beggars belief that a monitoring process would not also involve monitoring the surrounding material to ensure that water does not enter the site in the first place. Provided that is done then there is zero risk of leakage into ground water systems because there will be nothing to flow and nothing to transport in that non-flow.
Mick S – “Is there any reason why my idea of sealing the waste in an abandoned stable mine could not be monitored to some degree? (Included in the price paid by the waste creator of course)”
So in 1000 years the political unit known as Australia will still exist in its present form and will be able to monitor the dump for this timescale? So how many countries are there, that still have 1000 year old traditions that are not religious. If you are OK with the religious thing a person did come up with the idea of a method of ensuring safeguards on long lived waste. It was called the Atomic Priesthood.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NGP/AtomPriesthd.html
Ian Mott – “weighted investments in a range of stocks, fixed interest, hedge funds, property etc, in a range of currencies, and then charge for the service on a 5% rate of return (20 times annual increment) and continually reinvest any additional returns above that rate.”
So that would be the same hedge funds that are presently imploding with sub-prime debt? Good investment advice Ian.
“And why on earth would one need to guarantee the storage medium will last for 1000 years? ”
Of course not, it only has to last until you are dead doesn’t it. You get the power and others get the responsibility for your waste.
It is downright stupid to expect future generations to clean up after you no matter what their technology is.
The most optimistic predictions for ‘renewable’ energy sources are that they may be able to produce up to 15% of what is needed for an advanced economy.
To this, the so called Greens usually reply that future technological advances will make solar etc. much more efficient and cheaper – at the same time dismissing any possibility of similar advances in nuclear.
By pushing the AGW hysteria, while trenchantly opposing the the nuclear alternative to coal, the Greens have papered themselves into a corner.
BTW the concrete dome of the Pantheon has lasted well, for almost 2000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome
Ender, Steve, Sue, Dang, Who ever you are,
We mine uranium ore – basically 97% U238, 3% U235.
By means I won’t go into here, U235 is extracted for fuel.
Now you can read how society then uses this source of energy to produce power – since you, yourself, provided the links above.
But only a moron would confuse energy and electrical power.
Back to you.
chrisgo – “The most optimistic predictions for ‘renewable’ energy sources are that they may be able to produce up to 15% of what is needed for an advanced economy.”
Says who? Please post a reference for this claim. Perhaps you should read this:
http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Diesendorf_TheBaseLoadFallacy_FS16.pdf
Louis – “Ender, Steve, Sue, Dang, Who ever you are,”
No only ever Stephen Gloor – no-one else.
“We mine uranium ore – basically 97% U238, 3% U235.”
For a geologist you are doing pretty badly here. Uranium is ENRICHED to 3% U235 at which point is becomes nuclear fuel. Uranium which is extracted from tons of ore is only 0.71% U235.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/eudb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium
“By means I won’t go into here, U235 is extracted for fuel.
Now you can read how society then uses this source of energy to produce power – since you, yourself, provided the links above.
But only a moron would confuse energy and electrical power.”
The term electricity and power are used loosely I agree however I did not confuse them only used them as they are usually used. The most common unit of electrical energy is the kWh as you should know so you can talk about electrical energy. Most people say electrical power which would be the kW.
Mind you only a moron, made worse by actually being a geologist, would confuse natural uranium with enriched.
Louis – “Now you can read how society then uses this source of energy to produce power ”
I just read this better and perhaps you are confused more. Nuclear reactors convert mass into energy, heat. This then gets transformed into electrical energy by heat engines. This energy can be then used to do work. Strictly speaking you do not use energy to produce power because power is the rate of doing work not something that is produced.
OK I’ve read it, Ender.
Nothing in it changes my view – renewable energy source technologies are, as yet, nascent.
chrisgo – “OK I’ve read it, Ender.
Nothing in it changes my view – renewable energy source technologies are, as yet, nascent.”
Well at least you read it.
Ender, unless you have spent the past few weeks on the planet Gonzon, you should know that funds are not crashing. Most funds would have had less than 5% of their holdings in high risk investments. Go and read up on portfolio risk management before you dredge up these moronic simplicitudes.
The mail boy in most financial institutions could get his head around the notion that a fund established to maintain an important function in perpetuity will pursue a far more conservative investment strategy than your average day trading punter. And as some economies advance, others decline, prudent fund management will produce gradual shifts in the weighting over time to maintain the integrity of the fund.
Many fortunes have done so for centuries and have survived world wars, floods, famines, earth quakes and tsunamis. Yes they take the odd hit but they prevail through the application of simple rules like “don’t get too greedy”.
Mug punters and economic neanderthals tend to view these long standing accumulations of wealth as the product of crime or deception. But that only emphasises the extent of their ignorance of the actual processes and disciplines involved in wealth creation and stewardship.
And your pathetic line about leaving a mess for future generations to clean up only serves to highlight which camp you belong in. As if synrock bound in concrete, embedded in layers of sand, and sealed in stable rock formations, and capped with a water proof layer, and surrounded by large buffers, under constant, fully funded supervision, can seriously be described as “a mess”.
As if, fact + cream bun x stale bong water + indeterminant foreboding / vacuous prattle = articulate opinion. Fat chance boyo.
Ian Mott – “Many fortunes have done so for centuries and have survived world wars, floods, famines, earth quakes and tsunamis. Yes they take the odd hit but they prevail through the application of simple rules like “don’t get too greedy”.”
So it should be easy for you to point to one that has lasted 500 to 1000 years – yet you have not.
“And your pathetic line about leaving a mess for future generations to clean up only serves to highlight which camp you belong in. As if synrock bound in concrete, embedded in layers of sand, and sealed in stable rock formations, and capped with a water proof layer, and surrounded by large buffers, under constant, fully funded supervision, can seriously be described as “a mess”.”
However no waste at present is in such conditions because just about everytime it is attempted unacceptable leakage of radiation occurs where no-one imagined that any could occur.
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309073170/html/86.html#pagetop
“Nevertheless, the common perception is that for geological disposal specifically, one must be able to predict the future accurately—and it is beyond established engineering practices to predict accurately for many thousands of years how the waste and the repository will behave. It is also beyond established practice to predict accurately whether or not some of the radionuclides disposed in the repository may move through the geological formations and eventually come in contact with human beings and the environment in the future and cause them harm.”
“This migration was neither expected nor predicted from existing transport models, even though radionuclide travel time through the unsaturated zone has been the subject of intense debate at INEEL for almost four decades. In the 1960s, the National Research Council Committee on Geologic Aspects of Radioactive Waste Disposal visited the site and published a report on this issue (NRC, 1966). The report noted (p. 5) that
The protection afforded by aridity can lead to overconfidence: at both sites it seemed to be assumed that no water from surface precipitation percolates downward to the water table, whereas there appears to be as yet no conclusive evidence that this is the case, especially during periods of low evapotranspiration and heavier-than-average precipitation, as when winter snows are melted.
he impact of this “conceptual uncertainty” is very difficult to determine in performance assessment (see discussion in text). This is well captured in a quote from Konikow and Ewing (1999) who, comparing long-term predictions of natural systems with a game of chance, remark:
In hydrogeologic and geochemical systems, . . . we do not know the odds. In fact, we probably do not even know all of the rules of the game (or perhaps even which game we are playing); that is, for these natural systems there will be uncertainty in the conceptual models and in the complex non-linear coupling between models. ”
So on the one hand you disparage climate models for their inaccuracy however you cling to radionucleide transport models that are far more dodgy than the worst climate models to predict possible unexpected radiation leaks.
Your concept of “perpetuity” is as limited as your imagination. Perhaps the longest lived political unit in history is the Roman Empire that existed for approx 1000 years. If the Romans had nuclear power we would still be looking after their waste. Do you notice a lot of fully paid up financial institutions surviving from the collapse of Rome yet you and I would be paying for the safety of Roman nuclear waste.
Your pathetic faith in economics and your abject failure to imagine that there could be a time where there is no Australian bank to finance your safe storage of waste highlights the hidebound and conservative camp that you belong to.
Just admit that you do not care about the waste. As long as you are supplied with power for your plasma TV and fuel for your Prado you do not really care about disposing of the waste. You just want your power now and to hell with the problems. You only need to store the waste so it does not hurt you while you are alive and then after you are dead it ceases to be a problem.
Dear Ender
“Your pathetic faith in economics”?
Pathetic faith in theology, pathetic faith in physics, pathetic fath in ecology?
Why single out economics?
Blair
Ender said, “So it should be easy for you to point to one that has lasted 500 to 1000 years – yet you have not.” How about the Vatican? The Rothschilds? The Dukedom of York? The Raniers? the Thai Royal Family? The various Masonic Lodges? Knights Templar? Opus Dei? And numerous Monasteries from Catholic, Budhist, Shinto and Taoist that have maintained organisational and functional integrity for more than a millenia.
And they did so without an underlying self interest on the part of all future players to ensure that this operational integrity should be maintained.
Not to mention numerous other government sponsored entities that have survived despite the slings and arrows of various monarchs.
And forget your quote, it reads like something from Edward Lear.
Ian Mott – “And numerous Monasteries from Catholic, Budhist, Shinto and Taoist that have maintained organisational and functional integrity for more than a millenia.”
So you would be for the Atomic Priesthood then Ian? I really meant ones that were not religious – I did say political units, not families or religions.
“Not to mention numerous other government sponsored entities that have survived despite the slings and arrows of various monarchs.”
Such as????? Other than the Catholic church what surviving economic or political unit is there from the Roman Empire, or the Kings of pre-norman Britain or any of the short lived things that we humans like to think are forever.
“And forget your quote, it reads like something from Edward Lear.”
I didn’t expect anything different from you.
Ender said, “I really meant ones that were not religious – I did say political units, not families or religions.” What a cop out. Why should the discussion on the longevity of organisational units be abitrarily limited to exclude families and religious orders?
You clearly implied that the maintenance of stewardship over a particular piece of land, and or the maintenance of an organisational function, of the type required to maintain the integrity of a nuclear waste dump for the required time scale (ie 500 to 1000 years) has not yet been achieved by mankind.
The overwhelming evidence, from family dynasties, religious orders, universities, and official government functions, throughout the world proves that your statement was rooted in ignorance.
Various monasteries have operated as single and corporate multifunctional entities for more than 1000 years, with religious, educational, manufacturing and agricultural functions that have been maintained to this day.
For Universities see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation
For Monasteries see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastery
And note, “St. Benedict of Nursia founded the monastery of Monte Cassino in Italy (529 to present day), which was the seed of Roman Catholic monasticism in general, and of the order of Benedict in particular.
For the record, Monte Cassino survived intensive bombing during world war II when its strategic position was exploited by retreating Nazi forces. But it has maintained organisational and functional integrity for 1478 years. Some of the Chinese, Tibetan, Indian and Japanese institutions have lasted even longer.
The suggestion that mankind is incapable of maintaining a function as important as the storage of nuclear waste for more than a millenium is an opinion rooted in ignorance and completely at variance with historical fact.
For the record, here is the entire paragraph that Ender selectively quoted from above.
His part was “Nevertheless, the common perception is that for geological disposal specifically, one must be able to predict the future accurately—and it is beyond established engineering practices to predict accurately for many thousands of years how the waste and the repository will behave. It is also beyond established practice to predict accurately whether or not some of the radionuclides disposed in the repository may move through the geological formations and eventually come in contact with human beings and the environment in the future and cause them harm.”
But he left out the final sentence, “As emphasized above, however, the challenge is not to accomplish these impossible tasks, but rather to assess the range of potential future behaviors with sufficient confidence to allow the appropriate societal decisions to be made”.
You have been exposed for quoting out of context in a manner that is in direct contradiction to what the author was saying. Shame on you.
Ian Mott – “You have been exposed for quoting out of context in a manner that is in direct contradiction to what the author was saying. Shame on you.”
Really Ian – Well at least you read it. I quoted that part because it showed that we cannot predict in any manner what will happen in a thousand years to what we now think is safe storage. Perhaps I should have quoted the entire 20 odd page article – would you be happy with that?
As for the final passage the one possible future behaviour is to not use nuclear power at all because we cannot predict where the waste will end up. So therefore only if you are a nuclear proponent does it contradict the previous paragraph. And you have not refuted my assertion that you really do not care where waste ends up only that you want your power now.
Ian Mott – “Various monasteries have operated as single and corporate multifunctional entities for more than 1000 years, with religious, educational, manufacturing and agricultural functions that have been maintained to this day.”
However most of the entities that you mentioned are private or government organizations. So what you are saying is that private companies producing electricity for profit should expect taxpayers to foot the bill for the waste throughout the millenium.
Also you can really only point to the exceptions to the rule. There exists many records of civilizations and institutions that lasted a lot less than 1000 years. What happens if the one that is trusted to guard the waste is one of the short lived ones? Finally you are really only reinforcing Seaborg’s original premise that to safely look after nuclear waste the strategy that offers the greatest chance of success is the Atomic Priesthood as the overwhelming majority of long lived institutions are religious where rigid and unchangeable traditions are passed down through the ages.
Perhaps you feel comfortable with rigid and unchangeable traditions.
What a load of casuist bollocks, Ender. Did you bother to look at the list of enduring universities? Obviously not because very few of them have failed. And this pathetic need of yours to pigeon hole your concepts, like “nuclear priesthood” is really tedious.
You are also applying a test of certainty that no activity on earth could possibly satisfy. The missing sentence in your quote makes it clear that absolute certainty on such a long time frame is impossible but the maintenance of community or organisational capacity to monitor and respond to circumstance is the primary requirement.
You need to explain why a university, or group of universities, could not be endowed with both the future funding and the responsibility to monitor a nuclear waste site? Surely the on-going research into waste storage would be both an important field of study and a valuable focus for future research? Is anyone stupid enough to get between a bunch of chancellors and a bucket of funding in perpetuity?
This is only one of a number of equally viable options. And your fatuous nonsense about civilisations advancing and declining is off the page. Yes, there may have been a number of monasteries that have not lasted as long as 500 years but we can be certain that the ones that did fail didn’t have a funding endowment in perpetuity.
And your statement, “So what you are saying is that private companies producing electricity for profit should expect taxpayers to foot the bill for the waste throughout the millenium”, only highlights that comprehension deficit, again.
What I am saying is that the consumers of the electricity should pay a price that is able to fully fund the disposal of the waste from the product they have purchased. They buy the product at a price that allows the company to set aside sufficient funds (held in trust) to enable the annual profits of that fund to cover the cost of storage and monitoring.
And the entity that performs that task can be private, public or not-for-profit institutions. Indeed, best practice would suggest that the entity controlling the funds be seperate to the one doing the monitoring so any sign of underperformance can be remedied by replacing the contracted company if needed.
This is all rudimentary management theory and practice, Ender. You need to get yourself up to speed on it instead of indulging in your particular form of eco-luddite onanism.
Ian Mott – “You need to explain why a university, or group of universities, could not be endowed with both the future funding and the responsibility to monitor a nuclear waste site? Surely the on-going research into waste storage would be both an important field of study and a valuable focus for future research? Is anyone stupid enough to get between a bunch of chancellors and a bucket of funding in perpetuity?”
And you need to explain why should they? Why should valuable research funds be squandered on storing a problem that does not need to be. Why all the incredible effort of ensuring that your wastes are looked after correctly long after you have obtained the benefit from them when reasonable alternatives exist.
Also out of the thousands and thousands of universities that have existed over the ages you can only point to one or two that have survived over the millenium. How about the Library of Alexandria as a counter example.
“What I am saying is that the consumers of the electricity should pay a price that is able to fully fund the disposal of the waste from the product they have purchased.”
So what if they choose not to? Are you going to force them to pay even when they don’t have to?
The main point which you seem to have missed in your obsession to score debating points is that all the incredible effort of ensuring that nuclear waste is looked after properly with no certainty of it actually happening can be simply avoided by not using nuclear energy at all!!!!!
Renewables do not produce long lived dangerous waste or material that can be used for weapons and with some changes to how we use energy can supply our technology without the need for long lived institutions to look after waste for longer than a human lifetime.
“This is all rudimentary management theory and practice, Ender. You need to get yourself up to speed on it instead of indulging in your particular form of eco-luddite onanism.”
The fact is that renewables can supply a technological society without us returning to caves as you seem to insist that will happen. You need to get up to speed on smart grids, renewable power and V2G rather that the 1890s laissez-faire capitalism that you seem obsessed with. The future is about to leave your dangerous dinosaurs behind.
Ian Mott – “You need to get yourself up to speed on it instead of indulging in your particular form of eco-luddite onanism.”
BTW this is not “eco-luddite onanism” as you seem to thing. I just do not want to leave a legacy of dangerous waste for my great grandchildren to clean up. Perhaps the fact we are looking after my grand daughter this weekend really brings it home to me.
You really do have a tenuous relationship with the facts, Ender. “thousands and thousands of universities that have existed over the ages you can only point to one or two that have survived over the millenium”. Do you seriously believe the world was awash in universities prior to 1950? Even in the most advanced country in the world in the 1920s, (Australia) the average person left school after year six. The “well educated” continued for 3 years of high school. So who do you think went to all those Unis?
The Alexandria Library was just that, a Library.
“Why should valuable research funds be squandered?”, You must be joking. For a start, the funds are not squandered if they investigate an issue of community interest. And as the funds would not come from the public purse but from a fully funded commercial enterprise it is their business what research they choose to support, not the whim of parsimonious luddites.
And once again you dwell on this emotive crap, linking some vague notion of leaking storage media with the well being of your granddaughter.
Get this through your amputated intellect, Ender, CEMENT BLOCKS DONT LEAK. And if, by some rare event, a PhD student in year 2467 detects some minor degradation in one of the cement blocks, or some minor moisture build up in the 50 metres of overburden, he can write it up so the trustees can decide whether, by then, it is cheaper to shoot the stuff into the sun or apply the latest coating technology to keep it secure for another 500 years.
Either way, your DNA will probably have long since died out from sequential, intergenerational substance abuse so you, personally, are hardly a “stakeholder”.
The rest of your drivel about forcing consumers to use nuclear power is so fatuous that it needs no further comment. If you are morally opposed to base load energy then do us all a favour, switch off your supply and spare us the winges.
Ian Mott – “Do you seriously believe the world was awash in universities prior to 1950? Even in the most advanced country in the world in the 1920s, (Australia) the average person left school after year six. The “well educated” continued for 3 years of high school. So who do you think went to all those Unis?
The Alexandria Library was just that, a Library.”
Are you seriously this ignorant? Universities and places of higher learning are not a feature of white christian caucasians only. The Library of Alexandria was a place of study and learning as were hundreds of places such as where Alexander studied with Aristotle. You really do have a small minded view of the world don’t you.
“And as the funds would not come from the public purse but from a fully funded commercial enterprise it is their business what research they choose to support, not the whim of parsimonious luddites.”
Fully funded by people that are forced to – great!! Additionally this fully funded commercial enterprise better not cut corners as concrete is not concrete.
http://matse1.mse.uiuc.edu/concrete/prin.html
Perhaps you can read this and educate yourself about concrete.
“Get this through your amputated intellect, Ender, CEMENT BLOCKS DONT LEAK. And if, by some rare event, a PhD student in year 2467 detects some minor degradation in one of the cement blocks”
Only one of has an amputated intellect Ian and that is not me. Cement is a complex compound of various minerals. It is very hydroscopic as anyone who has build a house of concrete blocks will know. If radionucleides are bound up in the concrete they will leach out with the action of water over time. The waste is complex
“The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life – the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements. Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millennia [4]. Some elements, such as Iodine-131, have a short half-life (around 8 days in this case) and thus they will cease to be a problem much more quickly than other, longer-lived, decay products but their activity is much greater initially.
The faster a radioisotope decays, the more radioactive it will be. The energy and the type of the ionizing radiation emitted by a pure radioactive substance are important factors in deciding how dangerous it will be. The chemical properties of the radioactive element will determine how mobile the substance is and how likely it is to spread into the environment and contaminate human bodies. This is further complicated by the fact that many radioisotopes do not decay immediately to a stable state but rather to a radioactive decay product leading to decay chains.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste#Basic_overview
So how can you guarantee that all the radioactivity will remain where it is for this length of time.
It is PRECISELY this action that cannot be predicted as per that article that obviously you did not read only scanned for points. Also an item that you did not read radiation and heat change the chemical composition of materials that contain it.
“Immobilization of 137Cs and 60Co in concrete matrix. Part 2: Mathematical modeling of transport phenomena
I. PlecasCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author and S. Dimovic
VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, P.O. Box 522, 11001 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
Received 19 March 2005; accepted 13 April 2005. Available online 22 June 2005.
Abstract
There are two fundamental issues that must be addressed in an attempt to isolate low-level waste in a disposal facility on land. The first is the isolation of waste from water, or hydrologic isolation. The second is prevention of radionuclide leakage from the disposal facility, or radionuclide migration. We have investigated here the latter modified scenario. Transport phenomena involved in the leaching of a radioactive material from a cement composite matrix have been investigated using an empirical method employing a polynomial equation. The results presented in this paper are examples of the results obtained from a 25-year mortar and concrete testing project, which will influence the design of the engineered trench system for a future central Serbian radioactive waste storage center. ”
http://books.google.com/books?id=icSf7aVJPjcC&pg=PA554&lpg=PA554&dq=leaching+of+radionuclides+concrete&source=web&ots=0HiNWkLGtG&sig=qKNmWMDxLsN7-Kka7x4mjZWN1_c
SORRY CONCRETE DOES LEAK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“If you are morally opposed to base load energy then do us all a favour, switch off your supply and spare us the winges.”
For someone that does not know what base load electricity is this is pretty rich. I am not against technology just the incredibly stupid and dangerous nuclear power. The real advances in technology will come from exploiting renewables not perpetuating 1890s central power stations. Nuclear reactions are just a new method of heating water. The LAST thing a high-tech smart grid is more inflexible base load power.
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.
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 – 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.
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.
hey. how u doin?