The ones that are unaffected (sort of) by the type of nuclear reactor used are:

* The risk of nuclear proliferation.
* The waste disposal issue

I don’t think either of these are showstoppers, but the greenies do.

Nuclear proliferation and waste disposal don’t need to be problems if Australia elects to sell its uranium in a “package deal” where we charge a price component to accept and store the waste here in CSIRO-developed Synroc. That way we sell at a higher value-added price and simultaneously create safe waste disposal and virtually eliminate weapons proliferation risks, not to mention making a major contribution to reducing greenhouse emissions.

Nic

“pro-uranium” isn’t the antonym or the only alternative to “rigidly and automatically anti-uranium”. I’m simply suggesting that each proposal ought to be examined and decided on its merits. Thus I would almost certainly conclude that an open-cut mine at Koongarra would be unacceptable, because it would drastically despoil the view from numerous lookout points on the World Heritage-listed Nourlangie Rock. On the other hand, I think an underground mine there with minimal above-ground infrstructure and with the uranium being processed elsewhere would probably be acceptable. Similarly, either an open cut or underground mine at Jabiluka with onsite processing and tailings dam would be unacceptable, because it’s far too close to the Magela floodplain. OTO an underground mine with processing taking place at the old Ranger Mine (which is what was being proposed last time the project was actively pursued) strikes me as perfectly acceptable on environmental grounds. What we’re talking about is assessing the risks, costs and benefits on a case by case basis, instead of just rejecting all proposals simply because they contain the evil word “uranium”. That isn’t “pro-uranium” unless you define that expression as meaning “failing to be utterly anti-uranium irrespective of the facts”.

Otherwise, nuclear power leaves any other baseload power candidate in the dust on any meaningful comparison. It’s cleaner, cheaper, safer and actually releases less radiation into the environment than equivalent coal energy production.

Power enables consumption and capitalism, and they’d much prefer we lived in the woods burning turds for warmth and eating berries.

To grossly simplify, there are two ways you can get indigenous nuclear weapons: learn to enrich uranium, or operate a heavy-water reactor to enrich plutonium outside IAEA safeguards.

The uranium route is probably the most likely for a secret nuclear program because it’s the easiest to hide; Israel did it the other way, but Israel got its nukes with the knowledge and tacit approval of the major powers. North Korea’s supposed weapons are also made of plutonium, but their nuclear program isn’t a secret either.

Gilmae, if you encase nuclear waste in something nice and solid (like Synroc) and bury it properly, it’s not going to represent a risk to anyone. It’s only really dangerous for a thousand years or so, not the millions sometimes claimed by green groups.

How do you think Territorians will feel when/if the Government say that the NT is where Australia’s N-waste will be stored also?

I think you’ll find the federal government has already said that the waste dump will probably be in the NT (although they haven’t chosen a specific site). Naturally local Labor pollies are beating the whole thing up for all they’re worth. But in fact it’s low to medium level waste, largely products of nuclear medicine generated for local Australian purposes. So we have to store it somewhere, and the NT is remote, sparsely populated and geologically stable. It’s the best place for such a waste dump on utilitarian grounds, and the feds will be entirely justified in ignoring the cynical, NIMBY-oriented bleating of local ALP pollies. Moreover, sticking the dump in the NT also makes sense for the Howard government from a purely electoral viewpoint, because it only risks one House of Reps seat.

Because there is not very much of it. And its the most compact dense fueling system we have. (Bang per kilo)

(and the idea that it would stop yobbos burning dung and eating berries high in vitamin c appalls me, its banable for this reason alone).

http://dolebludger.blogspot.com/2005/06/more-on-nukey-power-nsw-is-going-into.html
and
http://dolebludger.blogspot.com/2005/06/nuclear-power-is-too-precious-nuclear.html

I’m also certain that we’ve got a major greenhouse problem ahead of us. I’m just not so convinced that Nuclear is our only option at this point, and I don’t think there been enough clear headed analysis of these options to make that call just yet.

“In an ideal world we would have had the facility operating at Woomera which is technically one of the best sites in the world, I mean, you couldn’t think of a better sort of geologic environment to do this sort of thing but I guess it was just a failure of leadership at some levels of government.”

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/2005/s1431577.htm

Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC) spokesman John Brisbin (Alice Springs) said:

“There’s no reason why that [low to intermediate level waste] shouldn’t stay at the already approved reactor site in Sydney,”…

“They’ve already got the facilities there, they’ve got the technicians, it’s a perfectly safe place to store this perfectly safe waste.

“Why should the taxpayers have to fund this new facility for something that could be stored at Lucas Heights.”

http://abc.net.au/news/australia/nt/alice/200508/s1429740.htm

And further from Central Australian news:

Hydrogeologist Peter Jolly of the Territory’s Environment Department…says the Harts Range site [north of Alice] is on a flood plain between two active river channels that come off the ranges.

He says evidence shows that over hundreds or thousands of years massive flooding has been responsible for “catastrophic changes” in the course of rivers in central Australia.

“A river goes in one spot at the moment but a ‘mega flood’ can lead to it changing its course completely,” Mr Jolly said.

He says such issues are important to consider given the long-term nature of a nuclear dump.

“The river channels may migrate across the [dump] site, so if you’re looking at a containment time of 500 years or a couple of hundred years, the site may end up in the river channel at some stage,” he said.

http://abc.net.au/news/australia/nt/alice/200508/s1429642.htm

While you and I and most sensible people realise that one may possess civilian nuclear capability without extending it into a weapons program, it nevertheless remains the case that a civil nuclear program is the ideal precondition for a military nuclear program.

One of the reasons we maintain ANSTO is to subsidise the retention of nuclear know-how. This was originally designed to keep the Red Threat/Yellow Horde/Domino Effect at bay with the ability to crash course develop a bomb. For some time we’ve also maintained F-111s, which don’t really do much for us defence wise, but which would make a ripper strategic (read: quick n dirty n-bomb) platform in a pinch.

Now going to a wholesale nuclear power program encourages others in the region to do likewise. Putting aside the serious benefits for air quality, I return to my original nervousness about some of our less stable neighbours developing high level national nuclear programs.

It’s also a pity that the technology which makes the nuclear fuel cycle spectacularly attractive in energy terms - fast breeder reactors - also produces weaponable plutonium as its main output.

see my above comment for links on this data

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s421192.htm

He doesnt think that mutation would pose any problem for the ongoing health of the planet. Mutation would probably only be local anyway, besides; nature being nature, cancer resistant parrots would probably appear after a while.

I think Bruce Sterling calls these kinds of sites involuntary parks, like the DMZ in Korea, or Bikini Atoll, or other places that unihabitable by humans for different reasons.

Sums up Ken’s post very well.