is building a nuclear waste dump in australia really the best idea? - commercial energy storage systems

Adelaide nightLow or no-
Cost motivation is one of the incentives being discussed.
Source: News Corp. Australian News Corp. has a tough outlook for the South Australian economy, and everyone is trying to find a way to boost growth.
But is it really the best idea to build a nuclear waste pile?
In Australia, the unemployment rate in South Australia is the highest, reaching 7.
5. 6%, the highest level since 2001.
Jumped to 8 today. 2 per cent.
John Spoehr, associate professor at the University of Adelaide, told advertisers that without major new investments in infrastructure and construction projects, the state is "on the road to double-digit unemployment ".
In this atmosphere, South Australia's Liberal Senator Sean Edwards has proposed his ambitious new plan for nuclear power plants and waste storage, which promises economic growth and could abolish state taxes and be residents.
In February, a survey of advertisers showed 58.
Its readers have supported the construction of nuclear power plants in the state.
Now, Jay Weatherill, the prime minister of the National Labor Party, has set up a royal commission to study the idea, acknowledging that the country is transforming and that some industries are in recession.
Senator Edwards believes that nuclear power could change the rules of the economic game ". So is he right?
Here's everything you need to know about this radical proposal.
The temptation of South Australia's Liberal power Freedom Senator Sean Edwards has become a cheerleader for the nuclear movement, who delivered a speech in April calling for rethinking.
He described nuclear energy as "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" and said he has been developing business cases for South Australia to become a participant in the Global spent fuel recovery industry.
With a global uranium waste inventory of about 240,000 tons, Senator Edwards said some countries may be willing to pay up to $1 million per ton to ship used fuel rods to South Australia for storage.
He said he had arranged for a "country of potential customers" to show willingness to pay for the construction of nuclear facilities in Australia if it was built to cater to them.
Senator Edwards also suggested that if nuclear waste could be recycled to generate low or no energy, it would be possible for residents to obtain cheap energy
Electricity.
He said some countries are legally, politically or technically restricted and will not deal with their waste again, even if they wish.
Senator Edwards told the news. com.
If a sodium cold fast reactor is built using the fourth generation technology, "Fire processing" can see waste fuel rods collected and recycled from nuclear facilities around the world, so that more energy can be squeezed out of these fuel rods.
This can produce low Free
Energy costs in South Australia.
Free tickets?
Cattenom nuclear power plant in eastern France. Picture: Jean-
AFP News: "The core of any successful economy is low energy costs, which is how to reverse the situation of the South Australian economy, Senator Edwards said:" In order to bring industry back, at least focus on South Australia as an option. ".
"You can also imagine the economic impact of a lot of cheap electricity on jobs, consumer spending, disposable income, business investment and national domestic products.
"But at least one expert believes that this situation is too good to be true and does not help the national economy in the medium and short term.
The technology suggested by Senator Edwards is still under development and is not feasible for more than 20 years.
Richard River, a former retired researcher at Flinders University, told the news. com.
The fourth generation reactor has not yet been built.
These reactors are generally not expected to be put into commercial construction by 2030-40.
"So far, there are four sodium cooling
A decade of failure and a history of serious accidents . "
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspected that a rod containing the reprocessed fuel was loaded into the reactor.
Image: Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesSource: Getty ImagesHe says the state government should wait until someone manages to get the reactor to run on an industrial scale before accepting anyone's
Even if researchers can develop a fourth-generation generator as a working technology, it may reduce the potential economic benefits.
"If it is possible to build a fourth-generation reactor, then there is no need to bring the irradiated fuel to South Australia for reprocessing, as this fuel can be used for combustion and power generation of the fourth-generation reactor, so why would any country want to get rid of it?
"Said Mr. Lively.
Mr. Leaver said that spent fuel would become more valuable and that new technologies would also mean that countries would not need to buy more uranium because they could re-process the old fuel they had stored for energy.
Kevin Scarce, who is leading the Royal Commission's investigation into the feasibility of nuclear energy in South Australia, agrees that the fourth-generation reactor is not yet feasible.
Commissioner Scarce has just returned from overseas to inspect nuclear facilities in Taiwan, Japan, Finland, Austria, France and the United Kingdom.
In an interview with ABC Adelaide, he said the fourth-generation reactor would be much safer, but the challenge is to understand when it can be commercially available.
The research team looked specifically at the sodium cooling reactors, and Commissioner Scarce said: "Based on what we have seen so far, I certainly wouldn't think they would be available by 2040 . ".
Senator Edwards had previously acknowledged that it would take time to develop a regulatory framework, conduct all necessary research, pass relevant legislation and build the necessary facilities.
It will take "no less than five years," he said ".
You snooze, it does take more than 25 years for you to build your own nuclear power plant, so that the technology will be eliminated by renewable energy.
Associate Professor Mark desendorf, deputy director of the Institute of Environment, University of New South Wales, said renewable energy technologies have grown so rapidly that it is now possible to use these sources to run the entire national power network.
"Nuclear power is not needed in South Australia or across Australia," Professor desendorf said at the Children's Rights Committee nursing seminar held on June 16 . " The seminar is aimed at discussing Australia's nuclear future.
Waterloo wind farm in South Australia.
Source: One of the reasons Australian News Corp will continue to lose its jobs in southern Australia is the closure of the Port Augusta power plant and the likelick coal mine before 2018, which will result in the loss of about 440 jobs.
Partly because of the increase in renewable energy and the oversupply of the national electricity market, SA Manufacturing Minister Kyam Maher said the company's capacity exceeded the demand to meet the demand.
In last October, South Australia received more than 100 of its electricity demand within nine working days for the first time.
From six o'clock P. M. to the combination of wind and solar energy.
Overall, it receives more than power from renewable sources with the goal of achieving 50 within 10 years.
Professor Dixon said that 100 of the state's renewable energy would take only 15 to 20 years.
"We can now say that the scenario cost of hybrid renewable energy is lower compared to nuclear plus fossil energy, and less carbon dioxide is emitted during its life cycle (fuel)
Under the circumstances, "said Professor Diesendorf.
He said that nuclear energy will also be the worst partner of the renewable energy system in South Australia, because nuclear energy is not very flexible in operation, it is difficult to match the sun with changes in wind energy and nuclear energy.
"Peak load stations need to be matched, not the base load stations.
The nuclear is too big. and smaller (nuclear plants)
There is still a long way to go before going public, "he said.
But who will pay?
Alinta Energy has investigated the construction of a solar thermal power plant in Port Augusta and said it is technically feasible.
But this year it gave up its plans because it found that the factory was not economically viable because it would cost nearly $0. 8 billion to build it.
However, its plan has also been affected by the $0. 15 billion expansion plan for Sundrop Farm, including a solar project that powers greenhouse facilities supported by state government grants of $6 million.
Ben Heard, PhD candidate at the University of Adelaide, told the crc care workshop that his model found solar heat to be more expensive in terms of capital costs ($11. 4 billion)than nuclear ($3. 5-$4. 8 billion).
However, the wind is the cheapest building ($1. 4 billion).
He also pointed out that the service life of solar and wind energy infrastructure is about 25 years.
In contrast, a nuclear power plant lasted about 60 years.
Senator Edwards noted how expensive renewable energy is compared to his reactor plan, and that the funding for the reactor is ideally paid by other countries to Australia to absorb waste.
"The cost of Australian taxpayers working on renewable energy is $200,000.
"This is the subsidy that every renewable energy job attracts," Senator Edwards said . ".
Whether there is money to build nuclear power plants or not, and whether there is enough demand in South Australia to maintain the plant, show me the money, taking away the waste from other countries can still bring big money to the troubled countries
Some people suspect this may be the key.
"The global concentration market is too saturated, No.
A convincing person believes that nuclear power is a realistic proposal for the sparse South Australian power grid, "Green Party Senator Scott ludram's column in New Matilda
"This leaves only the possibility that the entire exercise is intended to establish cases for national or international dumping of radioactive waste.
Australia has stored some low-and medium-level nuclear waste.
Source: Ben Heard, candidate for the Australian news group, said garbage would be stored in concrete buildings.
A potential nuclear power plant will produce about 6250 tons of spent fuel over a 60-year life span.
This usually needs to be stored in an area of 9500 m².
Senator Edwards said some countries may be willing to pay up to $1 million a tonne to ship used fuel rods to South Australia for storage.
Richard Leaver, a retired researcher, also believes that there may be a market for this waste, but he is not sure if it will be profitable.
"On the nuclear front (Senator Edwards)
I have said that there is too much money in this area to pay state taxes, and the power to create is actually free.
I did not see any evidence and he certainly did not provide any evidence. ”IS IT SAFE?
Hilde says nuclear power is one of the safest energy supply services in the world.
"We have been running 15,500 reactors for a year and three accidents have occurred and anyone can name them," he told CRC nursing workshop . ".
The impact of these accidents has also been exaggerated, he said.
For example, the UN report on the Fukushima accident in Japan found no radiation
A related death or acute illness was found among workers or the public.
The report also said it expects no significant increase in cancer in adults at Fukushima.
"So, it really depends on getting people's trust," Mr Heard said . ".
Related report: radiation leakage in the Pacific Islands, but associate professor Mark desendorf said the real impact of the Fukushima accident is unknown only four years later.
It will take decades to see this effect, he said, which is also difficult to assess because it is difficult to determine whether the cancer is caused by radiation or other causes.
The International Agency for Cancer Research also estimated that radiation from the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine could lead to 41,000 cases of cancer.
"The claim that nuclear weapons are one of the safest weapons does not stand scientific scrutiny," said Professor disendor . ".
"This is also based on the concept of accidents. . .
When their impact is huge, it should be ignored.
Commissioner Kevin Scarce, who visited Fukushima, said seeing abandoned cities made the group very eager to learn what was wrong.
"It will definitely open your eyes. want to get)
"The security aspect is correct," said Commissioner Scarce.
The reactor, located at an altitude of 4 m, is in a very unstable geological area, right above the water, which makes "you want to know what kind of planning this design is," he said ".
The relationship between the regulator and the operator also appears to have broken down, and Commissioner Scarce said that "the parties are complacent because of their own negligence ".
Some may argue that the establishment of a nuclear dump would also make Australia a target for those who wish to acquire nuclear weapons for plutonium, but that may not be possible, Mr Leaver said.
However, he does agree that reprocessing of nuclear fuel is a proliferation issue, which is why the United States banned domestic reprocessing in the 1970 s.
When the uranium is processed into fuel, it produces plutonium that can be used for nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors.
Workers carry B53 bombs at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas.
This is the last powerful nuclear bomb in the United States.
Picture: US Department of Energy.
Asked if this would make Australia the target of those who are trying to arm nuclear weapons, Sen Edwards said he did not think so.
"We are geographically isolated, geographically sound, and we can handle these things," Senator Edwards said . ".
"If we take this waste away, we will be good for the world, and we are actually reducing the risk of global proliferation.
Next Senator Edwards told the news. com.
The AU said he would advise the royal commission to build a nuclear power plant by July 24.
The Royal Commission for the nuclear fuel cycle has been dispatched to conduct independent and comprehensive investigations into the potential for expanding mineral exploration and exploitation in South Australia, engaged in further processing of minerals and the manufacture of materials containing radioactive substances, use nuclear fuel for power generation and storage and disposal of radioactive and nuclear waste.
The deadline for submission of its two issue documents is July 24.
It will submit its final report on May 2016.