Hi Robo, I will get back to you on this and answer carefully.

So Mark, if this is the safest method of storage for used fuel, why would nuclear countries pay South Australia huge amounts of money to store their waste on the other side of the world? Couldn't this set up occur just as safely adjacent to the reactors? Does that mean the speculative basis for the Scarce report economic modelling is flawed?

Speculative? Stephanie what is speculative about Engineering?? Are you an Engineer?

Flawed modelling? Please tell us about your financial models?? Are you an economist?

------
You would be a good lawyer - arguing a case in any direction you seem to like.

Dear Stephanie I have some questions for you:

What are your solutions to no control over the magnitude and timing of energy input from Solar and Wind transformed electricity?

Stephanie?

And you've already said before that you believe there is no need for Nuclear fuel - so you choose not too like it but you still use your Sat. Nav. and drive on Freeways.

So why is it that Nuclear fuel is so important for freeways? No idea.
So why is it that all US and UK submarines are Nuclear fueled? No idea.

You may not know what co-generation is:
And how do you expect Solar panels and Wind turbines to offer co-generation such as:
- Hydrogen production and
- Petrochemical cracking
without an outlet-coolant temperature around 850 degrees C?

Stephanie?

No Molybenum 99m for you then if you get cancer then.

Stephanie, you choose to ignore your own ignorance on this subject.

@Stephanie

I did not say it was the safest. I said it was economical. There are no risks I can fathom storing it this way. The fact it's already been put into a concrete cask makes it very safe. If SA now starts thinking about burying it in a geological depository, you will probably need to process it into glass.

I think this kind of storage can be just as safe in the original country. Their anti-nuclear protestors make such storage difficult so they will pay a lot of money to have it moved. This presents an excellent opportunity for SA to make money for doing next to nothing. No one forces you to do anything else with it. Now that breeder reactors are under development in China, India, Russia, it will be a few decades until the used fuel becomes a valuable source for new fuel. I don't think it should be kept in a warehouse forever. Only so long as there's nothing else useful to do with it. In a few decades time it can be recycled.

Steven still denigrating people with legitimate questions you and your mate Aaron are becoming desperate Steven a bit like Jay.

Christopher the biggest hypocrite on this site.

Some of Christopher's denigration of others (thanks courtesy of Fortran) in his posts:

Christopher Huckel
UNLIKE YOURSELF I'm not head and shoulders UP MY LOCAL MEMBER.

****

Christopher Huckel
Still playing your infantile games when the real crux of the problem is there is no HLW Dump that has been successfully and safely operating anywhere in the world. Thankfully the Propoganda machine is failing the Government and as such the public opposition to this Filthy Project remains in the majority and is growing daily.

*****

Christopher Huckel
Still playing your infantile games when the real crux of the problem is there is no HLW Dump that has been successfully and safely operating anywhere in the world. Thankfully the Propoganda machine is failing the Government and as such the public opposition to this Filthy Project remains in the majority and is growing daily.

****

Christopher Huckel
It might shock you Neanderthal's that the majority of Australians are against this Filthy Project to turn South Australia into THE WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPING GROUND but that is the case and if you could use the last Federal Election as a guide you will come to the conclusion that the majority of Australians are not Greenies as you put it or Nay-Sayers but just average people who put the Safety of their fellow man and the Safety of Australia above any short term promise of riches because the RISKS are just too great.

****

Christopher Huckel
Must really upset you Donald.

*****
Christopher Huckel
I have obviously struck a nerve with the inability to show us where they have safely contained HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE for a period of 100 years is it because to date they haven't SAFELY DUMPED High Level Radioactive Waste anywhere in the world for 100 years and yet you continue to say how safe it is to do so when it's plainly obvious this is a BLATANT LIE and just pure hypothetical guessing.

****

Christopher Huckel
You are better to stay in your little bubble than for me to burst your bubble Aaron and upset your infantile perception of our Government and exactly how they are lobbied on behalf of companies and individuals with vested interests.

Denigrating other people's posts: Christopher, have a look in the mirror
Desperate? Christopher have a look in the mirror.

Get back in your box and stop trolling the site.

Steven, Christopher is a man that has been out of information, ideas and his depth for quite some time. I don't mind the personal comments from him, it just shows he has no real comment (or information) to contribute. Comments with nothing, are nothing comments.

The tag team still working together guys you two are on every forum working for the Pro Nuclear Lobby regurgitating the Nuclear Waste Industry rhetoric but still unable to convince the majority of the population who are against this Toxic proposal.

I DO NOT WORK IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY! Read it and comprehend it!

If what myself or others post is 'regurgitated' you must have seen it before, why don't you have a meaningful rebuttal?

If what I posted about deaths associated with Fukushima being strictly linked to the fleeing in panic why didn't you see in advance what I was going to postulate about Fukushima and road tolls? You've seen it all before, but you're just not smart enough to remember it again? Even when prompted?

Just trying to stop an insane proposal from going ahead and putting at risk the lives and livelihoods of all South Australians sorry if you feel I'm not smart enough to form what you would consider a decent rebuttal Aaron but that's the beautiful thing about our wonderful DEMOCRACY anyone with an opinion can speak regardless of EDUCATION OR ETHNICITY sorry if this upsets the PRO NUCLEAR LOBBY.

I have no doubt you're smart Christopher, and I don't care if you supply decent rebuttal or not, just so long as your rebuttal isn't that I or anyone else 'regurgitate' information that it's clear you've never seen before, even after being steered toward the information. If you've never seen it before, how can it be regurgitated?

The regurgitated answers ironically come from you, every comment questioning experts, because asking someone with no idea is always a good idea.

Accusing your opponents of working together, note that we do not think that the antis are working together, not that it would make any difference to us even if you were.

Suggesting I/someone else 'works for' the nuclear industry - no I don't, if I did I would probably have even better info and statistics, or I'd have someone supplying me them instead of having to go and read/remember everything for myself.

Saying you don't want it, even though you clearly don't even know what 'it' is.

Continued use of the T word, when it makes no sense in the context of what you're saying. All the regurgitated déjà vu comes from you.

Don't like me or others refuting your statements? Post information instead of meaningless/pointless comments about how we must be 'in the industry' - or if you must go out and find my industry link/boss/company CFO and tell them to hurry up and start paying me, because right now I am seeing no money from your alleged links.

Don't just comment with rubbish to get your name out there, say something meaningful, who knows how many opportunities we will get to do so.

Go through the last 2 closed discussions Aaron I was only involved in one discussion where as yourself and Steven were extremely active and all over both then checking the discussions currently occurring and yes low and behold yourself and Steven acting for the pro nuclear lobby still jumping on everyone's opinions who are against this Toxic Proposal as you and Steven try your hardest to come across as though you know what's best for the population as you desperately jump on everyone's comments trying to reinforce your own opinions while denigrating those with opposing opinions if you guys were as educated as you like to portray yourselves on these forums you would be calling for a referendum on this issue instead of just denouncing everyone with an opposing opinion but then again that's my opinion and I'm sure a state wide or nationwide referendum is the only legitimate way to handle an issue of such importance to the population so instead of jumping on everyone with valid opinions think about the people that fought and died for this country and the Democracy that we enjoy today instead of trying to undermine it.

If we go through all the discussions the thing we're actually most likely to see Christopher is you saying the same thing, over and over and over again, whilst not actually contributing to the discussion.

Check the feeds Aaron you and your mate Steven dominate bullying anyone that is against this Filthy Toxic Proposal but I'm not telling you anything your not completely aware of Aaron.

What you mean to say Christopher is that you're not telling us anything that you've not told us before, of that, yes I am completely aware.

When you become aware that everyone's opinions deserve to be respected Aaron is when you will get people's respect but until that day of awakening you will continue on your solitary path.

We need not consider uninformed opinion. Opinions are opinions, everyone has them, but not all opinions have fact on their side. We need not respect the opinions of holocaust deniers, we need not respect the opinion of anti vaccinators, day before yesterday I met a person who claims HIV and AIDS are myths, he need not be taken seriously too. If you cannot articulate your emotion of fear with the cognition of what you're fearful of then basically, you're afraid of nothing.

Wow Aaron drawing another longbow of extraneous material to further propagate your minority opinion your getting desperate Aaron lol.

Not needing to consider an uninformed opinion is hardly a long bow, it's a standard rule of opinions.

@Renae-Schmidt: "I have never heard of this radiation affecting the southern hemisphere."

Nor did Fukushima Daiichi radiation affect the northern hemisphere to any meaningful degree. You need to get a sense of perspective.

Natural radiation is all over the place. It comes from the decay of potassium-40 and carbon-14 inside our bodies, from cosmic rays and solar radiation, and from radon gas released by uranium and thorium decay underground. I live in the Northern hemisphere. The radiation released into the atmosphere at Fukushima Daiichi was insignificant for me compared to all the other radiation my body has to deal with.

The radiation released at Fukushima Daiichi was not even significant for people living nearby it. All the harm suffered at Fukushima Daiichi was caused by the tsunami, hasty evacuation, or prolonged evacuation.

There are no scenarios which would lead to people being evacuated from near a used nuclear fuel facility.

Living organisms have mechanisms, such as DNA repair which helps counter bad effects of radiation. Only massive amounts of radiation are very harmful, so much that natural repair processes are overwhelmed [for example: by an A-bomb explosion]. Large radiation releases have never happened from stored used nuclear fuel. I never heard of a single person harmed by stored nuclear fuel.

I did read or see that radiation from the Fukashima plant was measured in America. I have also read that it is still leaking into the ocean. I know it is a different scenario to what is being proposed. I have also read about massive fish deaths increasing in northern oceans. So really not trusting of government information. They are not up front and honest enough about issues.

Renae, I tried to reply before too, but could get what I wanted to say to 'sound' right. Mark has done a good job, but I have some other stuff to add.

The radiation release out of Fukushima was not that large, elsewhere I replied to Christopher about how the panic evacuation from Fukushima killed more people than the radiation did. (Radiation deaths still stand at zero, and more importantly, are always likely to).

When scientists talk about 'measuring increases' in radiation they sometimes do themselves a disservice, because what they are talking about is using some very spiffy equipment to measure very small changes in level. Unfortunately, what people who don't understand radiation is think on hearing this is something like 'oh no, there's a dangerous thing out there all over the place' - that's not quite true.

There is more radiation in the oceans due to atomic weapons tests than there is due to Fukushima, in fact the weapons testing resulted in more radiation in the oceans that Fukushima and Chernobyl combined. That said, even the total amount of radiation contributed by man (intentionally or otherwise) in the oceans is insignificant when compared to the radiation occurring in the water by natural processes. Erosion of uranium and radium rich rocks, magma bearing uranium and/or thorium either from coastal volcanos or seepage between tectonic plates in areas of seafloor spreading entering the ocean water.

The most likely cause of the death to fishes in the northern hemisphere (if indeed these increase fish deaths exist) is increased water temperature.

To compare naturally occurring uranium in the environment to enriched nuclear waste Aaron begs belief but it's what we have come to expect from the Pro Nuclear Team.

There you go again... Enriched nuclear waste? What would that even be?

Natural and 'man made' radiation are the EXACT SAME THING, there is no discernible difference between them. Your body doesn't have some magical method of blocking 'natural' ionizing particles that is somehow circumvented by the 'man made stuff'.

That's a blatant Lie Aaron but that's nothing new from the Pro Nuclear Lobbyists.

Which part is a blatant lie? You're saying natural and 'man made' radiation are not identical? Or are you suggesting that your body does have some sort of protection against radiation that is somehow magically circumvented BY THE EXACT SAME RADIATION "generated by man'?

You have no idea. You Christopher (and I will resist calling you a blatant liar, because I don't suppose you are) are blatantly uninformed.

If you are going to call me a liar, then with all due respect I expect that you will back up your libelous comment with some supporting fact?

I'll post it right now because I cannot be bothered waiting a few days...

STILL WAITING!!...

Still waiting Christopher, where is your fact to back up you're disgraceful adsertion that I am liar?

Still waiting Christopher, where is your fact to back up your disgraceful assertion that I am liar?

Aaron if you honestly believe natural background radiation is the same as man made radiation when the doses from man made radiation are so much higher then yes your drawing a false picture of the real truth.But then that's my opinion Aaron and I'm sure you will continue to bang the drum for the Pro Nuclear Lobby.

Man made doses are higher? QED. You actually know precisely nothing.

Been to New York Christopher? Probably never left the country, if you had and walked through Central Station you would have absorbed MORE 'natrual' radiation from the granite walls and floors than if you worked in a nuclear power plant and absorbed the 'man made' radiation (which incidentally is still natural).

Get an idea.

Is it a long history or a short history? You've confused me, because you normally keep trying to tell me we don't have enough experience over time, you don't normally get that with a long history.

Let Australia vote guys.

Hi Christopher, as we've spoken about previously - Chapter 6 of the Royal Commission Report looks at the need for social and community consent for any specific facility proposal to proceed. This includes addressing the importance of "ongoing" social consent through the many stages and gateways if this process was to go forward​. In this context, it identifies that a public vote on a proposal (at any one point in time) is not a reliable indicator of ongoing consent.

Yes Brooke your participation in the undermining of our Democracy and our Democratic rights is worrying the collusion between all the parties involved in this insidious plan is quite abhorrent and hopefully the people can stop this stupidity.

No one will be allowed to put a used nuclear fuel storage facility in their backyard. It will be out in the outback, in the middle of nowhere.

Mark the 'outback' is still our backyard....but I am leaving this site...the people who want to have a Nuclear Waste Dump in Australia don't want any other Australians to have an opinion... they are so mean and negative on anyone who wants a safe environment....this is exhausting to even have a voice..why is it so hard for others to have some questions??...I am sorry but I feel bullied and I am leaving this site...

Hi Naomi, thanks for your comments and participation in the conversation. The Royal Commission found that there are a number of countries who do not have the geological attributes, space, or the social and political stability in order to be able to safely store the waste themselves. It was these attributes that the Royal Commission found South Australia has, to safely undertake this activity.

Thankyou Naomi keep up your great work it's appreciated.

While the report does say that "at present" nuclear power is not viable, then why is it referred to as the "nuclear fuel cycle"? I don't trust this government. Clearly they are in bed with BHPB and other nuclear organisations.

BHPB don't build or own power plants, they probably don't much care about an Australian power generation site, they make enough money exporting COPPER to the world.

It's called the "nuclear fuel cycle" to distinguish two scenarios. No recycling (called the "open cycle"), and recycling (called the "closed cycle"). In the "open cycle", with nothing done, used fuel must be cared for from "cradle to grave". "Cradle to grave" is phrase invented by government to describe custody of used nuclear fuel to prevent theoretical risks of it falling into the hands of foreign governments or "terrorists". Such people could theoretically use it to make nuclear bombs. The alternative to "cradle to grave" is to recycle it into new fuel which would destroy the plutonium in a reactor. Cradle to grave means the only way to forever dispose it is to put it beyond reach : deep geological repository or reuse by recycling.

Intermittent renewable energies such as wind and solar are financially ruinous. The two countries which have done most to promote intermittent energy in Europe are Denmark and Germany. The two countries with the highest electricity prices. These high prices will drive away all industry because a firm paying high electricity prices will not be able to compete with one paying lower prices.

The green movement have it as a policy goal to deindustrialize. That's why they favour high electricity prices.

Once we have destroyed the environment and polluted our water what will you suggest we eat and drink.

Tell the full story, use geothermal for base load? How?

Japan opens first new geothermal power post Fukushima, yeah, Kyushu, name plate capacity of 2MW, Fukushima had a plate capacity of 4.7GW.

Just a mere 2350 more of these plants required to catch up to Fukushima's capacity...

You also missed this quote "Japan is famously one of world’s most seismically active nations" - recall the government is looking at a nuclear waste repository because ... well ... we're NOT seismically active.

Aaron what are you basing your statement of us not being seismically active on surely not the records of the past 200 plus years seeing as this High Level Waste has to be stored for several hundreds of thousands of years and to say that we should be seismically safe for the next several hundreds of thousands of years would be an absolute unequivocal lie.

The rock record in central Australia goes back greater than 4 billion years, that's how we know Australia is not seismically active. In any case, I mentioned this in respect of geothermal power, at what you like about the length of record, a plant built today relies on seismic events today, and they're not there.

So you want to dump it in Central Australia now Aaron maybe we could bring the same Experts that set Fukushima up in its safe seismically inactive spot to determine the best place for a Nuclear Waste Dump what have we got to lose surely we would be as safe as Eggs.

Who said the Fukushima plant was in a seismically inactive region? No one would have ever said that.

Surely the Experts would not have constructed Nuclear Reactors in Dangerous Seismically active areas all the while telling the Public it's safe Aaron very similar to the processes that are unfolding here Aaron the same lies.

The earthquake didn't damage Fukushima

A waste repository isn't a power generation facility, they are so fundamentally different it's incomprehensible that you could continue to mistake the two for being anything like each other.

Both contain High Level Waste

Nope - but nice attempt to conflate the two to scare the pants off people.

A waste repository is a place where inactive nuclear material is stored in a long term engineered condition, a nuclear reactor is where nuclear fuel rods are producing heat and energy in a controlled environment, they may be reprocessed and in the future may become nuclear material that needs to be stored somewhere safe, preferably in a place that secure, safe, geologically inactive purpose built facility. Not all over the place like its currently stored.

'Both contain High Level Waste'? Really Christopher, you might as well have said 'both contain air', 'both contain employees', 'both contain telephones'. A nuclear energy plant does not typically contain nuclear waste, that's like saying your car contains exhaust gases, sure it might, but it's not generally expected to.

The majority of the people don't want their sate turned into the World's Nuclear Waste Dump our Government need to wake up and stop wasting Millions of Taxpayers dollars trying to peddle the lies of the Nuclear Industry and no amount of spin doctors or slick sales tactics will change this just allow the people their Lawful Democratic Rights bring on the vote.

You don't seem to have much knowledge of the 'nuclear industry' Christopher, I doubt you have much knowledge of the statistics industry either, I wouldn't be so sure about being in the majority.

Also tell us more about these lawful democratic rights on votes, no such laws or rights exist in this country.

If it wasn't the majority of Australians against this Filthy concept our Gutless inept Government would call a Referendum on it in a Flash the whole reason they are unwilling to Allow the People their Lawful Democratic Rights is they are fully aware of this that's why the deceptive sales tactics and this farcical process they are currently undertaking.

@DarrenJakobsson

Did not give a reason to avoid nuclear power.

I assume he wants to avoid fossil fuels because they emit CO2 gas which many people believe cause global warming.

1) Geothermal energy

Is a bad idea because it is only available at volcanically active sites like Japan and Iceland.

Geothermal energy ultimately comes from nuclear energy. From the decay of uranium and thorium in the earth's core. Tapping into geothermal energy releases radioactivity too. You'd think anti-nukes would be against this.

2) Solar and wind

Are not economically competitive. They only work with subsidy. Solar and wind make expensive, intermittent electricity. There's no sun at night and windless days are common. A solar/wind system needs another power source like natural gas to cover for it when it does not work. Used like this, natural gas is uncompetitive too because the gas power plant owner only makes money when delivering electricity. But this gas plant has a low capacity utilization! This plant costs money to build but is hard to keep working because it only makes money intermittently. At the same time many of the gas plants will be mothballed by their owners because they are unprofitable to run.

The only thing electric battery storage will revolutionize is South Australia's capacity to lose money in loss-making green energy schemes.

South Australia should avoid taking advice from well-meaning amateurs like Darren Jakobsson who I doubt would run his home electricity off renewables. I do not trust him to keep SA's emergency services running 24/7/365. Ask qualified engineers to run you electricity system instead.

Just read a different submission submitted somewhere else about the state from Darren Jakobsson - actually I was shown it by a electrical engineer mate of mine.

In it Darren advocates for a 500km power line from the so called 'hot rocks' in central Australia (three HUGE plants to be built there) to Moomba to supply ALL of Australia's base load power!

I am reliably informed EVERY EE in the office got a really good laugh from this! It certainly generated a good laugh for me too. All of Australia's base load from three geothermals, I am still laughing now.

Do you even know what the entire of Australia's 'base load' requirement is Darren?

Let me put it this way, in Japan with VASTLY more geothermal opportunities than we have in Australia geothermal manages to produce a staggering 0.25% (yes the '0' and '.' are accurately placed) of Japan's power needs... Japan's BIGGEST plant (actually three plants totaled into one) is 112MW! Let's put that in perspective, Torrens Island which on a good day has to run at 100% because the wind isn't in parameter has 11.5 times that capacity. 112MW is so insignificant that SA has more capacity than that in diesel powered (the very last resort peak stations) electricity generation.

Japan's biggest geothermal, (remember Darren is talking about it being base load here), is so small, SA diesel capacity exceeding it.

Mark Pawelek is correct, we have properly qualified engineers to run the power network, thankfully they understand the numbers and the situation before wasting time and energy on hair brained ideas.

Now we have 3 Aaron Steven and Mark the three Pro Nuclear Musketeers still struggling to brainwash the public guys it should be plainly obvious by now the majority of decent minded Australians are against turning our beautiful state into the Worlds Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump yet you guys still refuse to give up on this insane proposal and continue to bang the drum for the Nuclear Waste Industry.

The proposal is not as insane as your continued use of the word toxic in a fashion that does more damage than good to your argument.

I am sure I would rather be one of your three musketeers, than be one of the proudly ignorant like yourself Christopher... Got some data or information to add on how geothermal (or wind or solar) can supply base load electricity Christopher? You like to comment a lot, but you never seem to have much to say.

Considered the link between Fukushima and road deaths yet?

Just praying more Australians stand up to the Pro Nuclear Lobby and we can protect our environment for the future generations to come if this makes me an ignorant individual as you put it Aaron I'm proud to wear the badge.

Fact never been able to safely Dump HLW for a 100 year period so how can you say they can safely Dump it for several hundreds of thousands of years. Fact no man made structure has lasted for several hundreds of thousands of years.

Fact: 'man' - Hom0 sapiens have existed for about 200,000 years. Fact: fire control and use was known to our ancestoral hominins from about 350,000 years ago. Not in all that time, 350,000 years, have we or our ancestoral species controlled, safely stored or recycled our CO2 emissions from burning fuels. How's driving your car going for you Christopher?

Fact: In Missouri there's a bridge called the 'Eads Bridge' it was built prior to 1875, I don't care for its exact age. It's famous for being one of the longest and earliest steel bridges and it's still in use today. Do you suppose the residents of St Louis using it to cross the Mississippi in their cars and trains today worry because there is no older equivalent steel bridge in the world to prove that their bridge is still safe to cross after all this time?

What's the bridge got to do with the Dumping of High Level Nuclear waste Aaron absolutely nothing if the bridge collapses what's the maximum toll expected but when the HLW leaks into the environment which will happen the cost to the environment is enormous far too great to risk our clean green image and all the people that rely on our clean environment for their livelihoods. At the end of the day it's the tax payer that will be asked to insure this Filthy project and it's the same tax payer that is being told that their actual vote for approval is not needed because the Government and the Nuclear Waste Industry are seeking to circumvent this process it's Disgraceful that Publically elected officials actually have such contempt for the public and our environment.

Christopher, your logic breaks down when you say "HLW leaks into the environment ... will happen". What if they make the facility good enough so there will be no leaks?

The points about Eads Bridge is this, it's something like 51.5 thousand DAYS old. We've never built a steel bridge that's lasted 52 thousand days. How could we possibly know that this bridge will 'last that long' humans have never built a steel bridge to stand 52,000 days, yet we know this bridge will stand that long, and a great many thousands of days beyond that. How do we know this? Engineering. How do we know, having never done it before, that we now have the technology to store HLW for millennia? Engineering.

How do we know that waste parked many hundreds of metres (even kilometres) below the surface will never reach the biosphere? Engineering. Even if the composite containers used don't make it to a nominated point in the future, we know that nuclides won't make it through several billion years worth of rock.

If the Mistruths that your peddling had any basis at all then why is it there is not a rush on internationally from countries around the globe to collect on this financial windfall that the Nuclear Waste Industry would have us believe is it because like us the other countries around the world can smell a rat and are not prepared to put their own populations and future generations at risk based on the lies and Propoganda of an Indusrty in Decline Worldwide, Yes Aaron nobody wants to sit on the Worlds Supply of High Level Nuclear Waste you will find that most Australians are happy to deal with their own waste but are not prepared to become the NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP FOR THE WORLD.

We have some quite unique factors that enable us to do this on a world scale. Few other nations have these.

Just more spin Aaron you know we have an incompetant government that would sell the air we breathe if they could and the Nuclear Waste Lobbyists know this and is why they have been busy behind the scenes lobbying our political members to achieve their Filthy Endgame. Luckily the majority of Australians will not put up with the political spin doctors dribble and the Pro Nuclear Rhetoric and they refuse to risk the safety of the population and future generations just to appease the Nuclear Industry an Industry in Decline around the World.

So rather than containing it in stable rock, in a location where it can safely sit around with nothing happening to it. Having it contained away and isolated from the biosphere, you'd rather put it in a rocket, subject it to high g force, shock and vibration flying it through the atmosphere?

I don't intend for this to sound mean, but there is just no better way I can think of putting it. Launching the stuff in a rocket to the moon, space, the sun, I don't care, is off the chart of crazy.

I did say it was not ideal...but so glad you bought up the danger and issues of transporting it...I am glad you acknowledge how toxic it is...therefore if it is too dangerous for space (crazy)..then it would be "off the chart crazy for an area where people live"... thanks Aaron..I totally agree...you made the case stronger for the NO'S...your a legend

I think Naomi means let the World handle their own Waste why should all of Australia bear all the risk when we only produce a miniscule amount of waste by world standards it's not safe to allow the world to dump the worlds nuclear waste here it will never be a safe proposition the majority of the population are against this proposal and it's about time the Government showed the people the respect they deserve and stop trying these subversive tactics and just allow the population to vote and stop this stupidity in its tracks once and for all.

Naomi, you're almost worse than Christopher, outside of a weapon, could you please outline to use the exact circumstances in which nuclear anything is transported by bolting it to an explosive device? No you cannot, your statement is silly, and you clearly have no idea what a nuclear flask actually looks like. Nuclear flasks have been collided with trains at better than 100mph and the damage to the flask was 'too insignificant to measure'.

"Aaron" its wonderful that your such an expert on Nuclear Waste disposal...especially since you have no agenda?, are not employed in any way by vested interests?...just a fellow Australian who happens to know what Nuclear flasks collision properties entail...for someone who just wants to 'help' us understand, you seem very aggressive, negative and belittling to anyone who has a question or differing opinion. To clarify...I don't want Nuclear waste dumped in space but mostly I don't want it here either...why does this upset you so very much

Nearly every self respecting engineer would know about the nuclear flask testing! They were some of the most famous engineering crash tests in history. The footage is on YouTube! You don't have to be an industry insider to know about it.

The very same self Respecting Engineers that said the design of Fukushima Daichi was spot on and they were horribly wrong there Aaron.

Fukushima has nothing to do with this discussion, what broke Fukushima? Because you cannot grasp it, I'll tell you again, a tsunami.

When was the last tsunami in central Australia? Never.

Aaron I'm pretty sure the earthquake created the tsunami but then I'm sure you would disagree but lets just let the people decide their future if these forums are a basis to go on they have decided pack it in pack it up the population don't want their state turned into the Worlds Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump Aaron accept it and move on mate.

Aaron are you an engineer who is working for a company with a bid for the contract?...is your 'heated intense interest' for monetary gain? Could you clarify that there is no conflict of interest here?...cause if you have nothing financially to personally gain...why are you so fixated on Australia being the worlds Nuclear dump? There are other ways for Australia to get funds...perhaps tax Multinationals etc...if a SA company didn't get the contract, would your opinion change?

Australia is known world wide as a pristine beautiful country with a unique fragile and complex ecosystem and wildlife...with european settlement for only 200 years or so.. and we are actually going to become the worlds Nuclear Waste Disposal toilet...really? I just don't get it...I think our slogan should be "Australia..it's a place you just cant buy!" Please this is not Advancing Australia at all.

Yes Christipher the earthquake caused the tsunami, but where is the water for such going to come from in central Australia? It's just not there.

A waste repository is vastly different to a power generation facility, there is no criticality in a waste facility, no moderator required, there is little to no heat generation, certainly no heat generation requiring circulating water, no heat requiring thermal sinking by any water, circulating or otherwise.

It's an entirely passive system, the only requirement for external power (the absence of which is what 'really' caused Fukushima's problems) is for lighting required by the people working there. A power failure would mean nothing more than the lights are turned off.

Naomi I don't work for an engineering company, one that's bid or otherwise, and incidentally, none have bid, because there is no tender to build, because there is no site selected, because there is no legislative framework to select a site and no legislative framework to determine the type of facility to be built.

I have mentioned what it is that I do before, I have no desire to mention it again.

I have no links to the nuclear industry, I am not paid by the industry (if you think I am, please contact the industry because my cheques have seemingly gone missing) and I don't have a conflict of interest.

This might come as a shock to you, but there are people out there that support good ideas without having a link to the industry. I support children's rights and charities, but have no children... I support animal welfare and charities too, and have no pets... One does not need a link to an industry or to be able to draw income from it to support it. Do you get paid by an environmental group? No? Then why do you support them?

I strongly expect a non SA companies will be involved in the project, that's not necessarily a bad thing, this is not the sort of project many SA companies would have experience in.

Why am I for a waste repository in South Australia? Because I understand the near unique circumstances available here, (and not only in SA, there's eastern WA and southern NT too, that might be suitable), we have a near unique ability to do something not achievable in more than a handful of locations in the world. I know that radionuclides are not nearly as scary as you think they are, I know what the stuff looks like, few others here do, I know what it is and that we can achieve the goals outlined by the NFCRC.

Don't fool yourself, Australia's ecosystem is no more complex or simple than that in near any other country. It is also of note that there is no ecosystem - fragile, complex or otherwise, hundreds of metres (or kilometres) below the surface of the ground.

Let's not take the risk informed or otherwise its a risk that we do not need to take its a risk the population are unwilling to take and it's about time our incompetant Government start to listen to the people the Pro Nuclear Lobbyists can try to spin it as a great opportunity but we all know it's an insane proposition with exponential risks over hundreds of thousands of years risks far too great to burden future generations with.

Lucky you're not informed about road deaths Christopher, the auto industry kills more people than the nuclear industry, the auto industry does not take responsibility for recycling used cars, the oils and fuels they consume etc. the nuclear industry is one of the few industries in the world taking the treatment of their wastes seriously.

More Lies Aaron if this was actually the case why are they trying to Dump this Toxic Filthy Legacy on Australians c'mon Aaron.

So you think a hundred or so road deaths per annum in this state alone is a lie Christopher? You are ridiculous beyond comprehension.

Never heard of a vehicle accident where they were unable to clean up the site or had to evacuate tens of thousands of residents seeing as you love comparing the annual road trauma to Nuclear Accidents FUKUSHIMA AND CHERNOBYL but the public are awake to the subversive underhanded tactics the Nuclear Industry use and Especially the 2 pro nuclear proponents on these forums Aaron.

There's a link between road deaths and Fukushima Christopher, I wonder if you will ever understand what it is.

The only link is that road deaths will continue just like Fukushima continues to leak Toxic Radioactive Nuclear Waste into the Environment.

Ah no.

Not in all of human history has a single death been recorded due to the 'toxic' action of any of the 'leaking' elements from Fukishima. The toxicity has led to not one death, not ever - NEVER! Even by radiological process - note by definition this is not toxicity - the recorded deaths at Fukushima still lie at exactly zero. Residents of Fukushima are no longer regarded as carrying an increased rate of cancer.

The Japanese government and local officials were DELIBERATELY slow in announcing the problem at Fukushima to the residents and with good reason too, for they knew something you will never understand Christopher. Panic and fear (the two factors you play on the most) are far more deadly and quick to kill than radiation is likely to be.

The direct link between Fukushima and road tolls is this: in the panic flee of the area, (numbers seem to vary across sources but I have chosen a lower estimate) 235 people are estimated to have died in vehicle accidents in the rush to leave the area. Fukushima is estimated to have directly added 235 (and maybe more) to Japan's 'road death toll' that is horrendous.

The total number looks even worse, panic, stress, heart failure, other medical conditions related to strain, people fleeing and forgetting important medications, trips and falls, car accidents and the most tragic of all, suicides accounted for about 1600-2000 people dying in the short aftermath of Fukushima.

The better part of 2000 people died because they panicked out of fear alone, in haste and seemingly in reckless ways, fled or worse, committed suicide, out of fears like yours of the 'certain death' from radiation - but that certain death never came.

Simply staying home and not panicking after Fukushima may well have saved lives, that's why the authorities were 'slow' to report the happenings. They knew the real killer wasn't going to be 'monster' everyone thinks it will be.

I am leaving this site...the people who want to have a Nuclear Waste Dump in Australia don't want any other Australians to have an opinion... they are so mean and negative on anyone who wants a safe environment....this is exhausting to even have a voice..why is it so hard for others like me, to have some questions?? and want some discussion about this topic...I am sorry but I feel bullied and I am leaving this site...I don't feel that my opinion means anything and feel that the 'trolls' have taken over

Hi Naomi, if you would like to leave feedback in a different space without contributions from others, we invite you to fill out our feedback form - it's important for us to collect as much feedback from the community as possible to inform the Government's decision at the end of the year: http://bit.ly/2azrSZe (copy and paste).

Naomi broadcast your views on as many platforms you can find to wake as many people up to the underhanded tactics of our inept government in trying to turn us into a Nuclear waste Dump.

That's not a simple question, and it doesn't come from a simple mind I am sure.

It's hard to give a decent answer when my only tool is a plain text response.

See here for an idea. http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Decay.htm#.V5xJT1RlaJJ

Most of what happens is electrons move around, in real terms they don't go anywhere as such, but in physics terms they most often move up to higher energy orbits. This is where the energy in the emitted particles goes.

Somewhat similar to moving Mars out to an orbit like earth's. It will take much energy to move it there. As the nucleus pulls the electron back to where it should be, the electrons normal orbit energy is released, generally it's heat.

In the storage the NFCRC looked at this heat it's very much and it will just be conducted and convected out to the surroundings. This heat is much higher with higher activity which is why spent fuel is initially stored under water until the energy (heat) release is more manageable.

Radiation does not escape over time. Radioactive elements decay. This decay transmutes them into non radioactive elements, considered safe. There are several kinds of decay. Radioactive decay eventually leaves the substance non radioactive.

Let's hope we have the chance to bring this important issue to a vote so this insane proposition can be dumped once and for all Naomi and the trolls can go back to office politics and stay out of real life politics.

Hi Rosemarie, you are right have you read the NFCRC report?

Hi Rosemarie you are not required to read any of the Propoganda put out by the Government or the Nuclear Industry to still be entitled to an opinion that's the beauty of living in a Democracy as much as this upsets those pushing the Nuclear Industry Rhetoric.

Christopher the only propaganda comes from you!
And you repeat-dribble it too (despite your earlier warning).

. . Any normal person will read the NFCRC report – but you wish to remain un-informed and refuse to let go of your pre-conceived notions.

Yes we're all entitled to an opinion, but only on the basis of adequate knowledge.

Christopher we really want to work with you, we do.

You may read Chapter five of the NFCRC report regarding Nuclear waste.

.

I have some questions for you . . .

- How does nuclear fuel eventually turn to lead?

- And from School: What is the “Periodic table of elements” shown all over the front wall in our science classes?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,

,

,

,

.

,

.

.

.

.

.

Christopher?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Uninformed even on this.

It would appear you hold fixated opinions on nuclear based on: > pure ignorance.

It seems the majority hold those same opinions Steven game set match you and Aaron need to pack it in LoL

Stays permanently underground for thousands, millions or billions of years until it turns into lead depending on the particular fission product.

In the meantime the decaying fission products (and others such as *Uranium-238) by slowing changing from one element into another - in order to achieve a state of rest, give off the following types of radiation:

* Uranium-238: 92 protons + 146 neutrons = 238 total particles in the nucleus.

1) Alpha particle radiation (two protons and two neutrons - which is just a helium nucleus).

Proton loss: The loss of the two protons results in the new atom forming from a move two places to the LEFT of the Periodic table of elements.

Neutron loss: The loss of both neutrons does nothing but makes the new atom lighter.

Alpha particle shielding: A piece of paper.

.

2) Beta particle radiation: An electron; but at the same time one of the neutrons changes to a proton (in the case of a 'beta minus' decay).

This results in a move one place place to the RIGHT of the Periodic table of elements because of the new proton increases the atomic number by one.

Beta particle shielding: Say an aluminum sheet.

.

3) Highly penetrating dangerous Electromagnetic 'gamma-waves':

Are given off if the formation of the new atoms (eventually turning to lead) still require a complete state of rest in order to reach equilibrium.

Gamma ray shielding: Far thicker or more dense materials than those required for the less penetrating Alpha radiation and Beta radiation.

Submarines, Russian ice breakers, the ten US Navy Aircraft carriers:

One may like to check out Gamma ray shielding both in:
'common areas' and
inside the reactor compartment.

Radiation units: Sieverts.

Thank you for the information, I'm going to need to do some more research in this area.

Still trolling participants Steven

Jealous that you couldn't answer the questions first Christopher?

Incredulous that you and Steven are still trying to diminish people that have a right to put forward a point of view and that you Aaron and Steven are still working together to try and diminish these people and their point of view.

Christopher we all have a right to an opinion - but first must on the basis of adequate knowledge.

Can you tell an isotope and a neutron?

Read the NFCRC report yet?

Congratulations Michelle for your inquiring mind.

After 30 years the waste will be a little less radioactive but must still be looked after. Long term, it must be either (1) guarded for 240,000 years, (2) finally disposed of, or (3) recycled. Those 3 options are fixed. This is due to the "cradle to grave" compact mandated by international anti-bomb proliferation rules. IMO the sensible thing is to recycle it within a few decades. Recycling it should split it into about 4 parts.
* Fission products which are either radioactive or not. None radioactive ones are 'safe'. Some of the non-radioactive material has valuable applications in industrial catalysis: ruthenium, rhodium, palladium.
* Plutonium - the cradle to grave compact forces one to look after this
* Uranium (96% of spent fuel) - which Oz has loads of already. Spent fuel also contains uranium-236. It could be used as fast reactor fuel.
* Other actinides - are radioactive, and must also be securely kept. Or they could be used as fast reactor fuel.

Any radioactive material must be looked after, or used. Plutonium can be made into new fuel. This is a good way to dispose of it. Plutonium can be mixed with thorium to begin the thorium fuel cycle. Within a few decades, India will pay for it because they plan to run a thorium fuel cycle, and plan to have a large amount of nuclear powered electricity. Because plutonium is so heavily restricted by international treaty, you may have to turn it into thorium fuel before you can sell it them.

Hi Michelle, thanks for joining the conversation. The waste is disposed in a deep geological disposal facility (GDF) with multi-barrier system that contain the material. You can learn more about what a GDF is and the cannisters in which the waste is stored in here: http://bit.ly/2aTlgkL

Rosemarie you are so ignorant on this topic.

If you do not agree on all levels of nuclear power then maybe you could enlighten us to tell us what is?

Then if you disagree on all levels of nuclear power:

1) Do not go out in the sun - and get what type of nuclear power? ummmmm..

Then if you disagree on all levels of nuclear power:

2) Turn your TV off, whenever real-time weather forecasts are shown from Voyager and other satellites - that people like you take for granted.

Rosemarie, what type of nuclear energy is used to enable your Sat. Nav?

You may now about nuclear satellite fuel, because solar-energy is not used for satellites as follows:

RADIOISOTOPE THERMOELECTRIC GENERATORS (RTG).

Dear Rosemarie, radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) have been the main power source for US space work since 1961.

It is the high decay heat of Plutonium-238 (0.56 Watts/gram) that enables its use as an electricity source in the RTG of spacecraft, satellites, navigation beacons - and its *alpha-decay process calls for minimal shielding.

Rosemarie, heat from the Plutonium-238 is converted to electricity through static solid-state thermocouples), with no moving parts.

*alpha-decay radiation: two protons and two neutrons – a helium nucleus)

.

Rosemarie do you know what alpha decay is?

You may recall your Periodic table of elements from school. . .
Helium is second on the Periodic table my dear.

3) Rosemarie, then if you disagree on all levels of nuclear power:

NUCLEAR DENSIOMETER:
Why are you happy to drive on all freeways that have all had their deep Compacted fills checked by Geotechnicians using Nuclear densiometers all to AS1289?

4) Then if you disagree on all levels of nuclear power:

Why do you think it is so important that all Attack submarines consist of only Uranium-235 fueled submarines?

Where the likes of the 7900t SSN-774 (Virginia class, and Russia's 13500t K-329 (Yasen-class) also have a refueling period exceeding the life of these submarines?

.

It is inside the nuclear reactor that during the energy transfer process, at no stage is there a requirement for the presence of air or oxygen.

Thus preventing a submarine having to regularly rise to the surface like the old diesel-electrics' did exposing themselves to enemy aircraft.

The Battle of the Atlantic did not dramatically and rapidly swing our way until the introduction of the long-range B-24 Liberator in May 1943; nearly closing the 'mid-Atlantic gap' . . .

. . . . shooting and sinking around 73 German U-boats -all vulnerably exposing themselves at the surface.

Why do you think that at the peak of the Battle of the Atlantic that 1200 lives where lost to German U-boats earlier in March 1943?

Why do you think that all UK and US Submarines are fueled by Uranium-235?

What is Uranium-235? umm no idea.

Rosemarie if you disagree on nuclear power you may decline from any of the following if you get cancer my dear;

a) Daughter isotopes of Uranium-235,

.

b) Grand-daughter isotopes of Uranium-235,

.

c) Great-grand-daughter isotopes of Uranium-235

.

d) Great-great-grand daughter isotopes from Uranium-235 and so on . . ,

. . all at Sydney's 20MW reactor.

What is with the kooky anti-nuclear phobia?

Respectfully Rosemarie the more one learns about nuclear energy, the more one comes to terms with its feasibility - you're smart and talented on other things.

Rosemarie the more one learns just confirms ones beliefs on the dangers of allowing The Nuclear Waste Industry to dump the worlds high level nuclear waste on us it's not safe and can and will never be safe and the population are refusing to be brainwashed as much as this upsets the 2 proponents of this project on these forums.

This won't reduce 'energy costs', it's not a facility for supplying electrical energy, it's for storing used fuel. We will not likely get a nuclear fueled power station in the state until the government and public fully understand the ramifications of relying on unreliable wind and an interconnecter.

Good thoughts Rosemarie.

The following Australian Standards and Work Health and Safety references may answer some of your questions:

AS4360 -Risk management
AS4804 - Occupational health safety and management systems.
AS1170 Loading general.
AS1170.4 Loading seismic (see 'section 3' for South Australia's seismic hazard map).
AS3600 Reinforced and Post-tensioned concrete.

Some Geotechnical standards are but best provided by a Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer.

RADIATION:
From our Physics classes radiation effects are a function of the following sample variables;

1.1) Time: Time of exposure to the source.
1.2) Distance: Distance from the source.
1.3) Shielding: The type (density, thickness) of shielding around the source.
1.4) Other variables?

Safety concerns during a disaster: (say a seismic event refer AS1170.4) similar to the analysis and design of low-level or multi-storey structures such as:

-Reinforced concrete multi-storey hospitals or say Police stations,
-Reinforced concrete single-storey hospitals or say Police stations,
-Reinforced concrete multi-storey carparks,
-Reinforced concrete multi-storey residential units . .

. . but with the added loading of Radiation also.

.

SITE LOCATION: Are the analysis and design of post-disaster recovery structures (such as Reinforced-concrete hospitals) positioned where South Australia's low seismic Hazard factor (Z) of only 0.03 is, such as NW of Ceduna? Ref. Fig. 3.2(B) AS1170.4

OR

Do these structures actually go - where they're needed local to communities?

.

The tag team strike again Steven and Aaron

Something to add Christopher? No? What a surprise.

How's your team going Aaron SSDD I suppose Aaron

No we cannot.

So are we consulting more broadly?

It depends on what you call an incident. Incident free? Maybe not, a container might move, a ship might go off course, but in terms of the damage you see from an oil spill? That couldn't happen with nuclear waste, it doesn't transship in 'spillable' form.

Thanks Aaron for your response.
I don't want to be overly dramatic but I guess an incident might be anything that results in a sinking, perhaps fire, collision or an act of war or terrorism. The fact that its possible, probably a statistical certainty, should concern us all.
Can we manage that sort of incident?

Phil, there could be a strong case for a new Australian standard!

-

SOME EXISTING AUSTRALIAN CODES:
AS4360 Risk management
AS4804 Occupational health and safety management systems
Work cover code of practice
Work Health and Safety act and regulation

.

SOME U.S. CODES:
1) U.S. Naval reactors statute 50 U.S.C 2406, 2511
(reference: 151 million miles steamed safely on nuclear power).
Others at Naval Reactors in Washington DC as follows:

National Nuclear Security Administration
Naval Reactors Public Affairs Office
1240 Isaac Hull Ave, SE Stop 8037
Washington Navy Yard, DC 20376-8037
Office contacts:
-Jim: 0011 1 202-781-6172, Geoff (or Arlene): 0011 1 202-781-6236

OR

2) Department of Energy (U.S.A.)

Steven, you are right I'm sure as Standards reduce risk, sometimes well, sometimes not so well.
We can discuss probability if you like but for the moment I'm wondering how a sinking incident in deep water might be managed?

Phil yours' is a very good question regarding a 'sinking incident in deep water' of waste nuclear fuel - and as a worst case scenario ought to be addressed.

Dangerously it is often these 'low-probability, high-consequence' risk events that make us complacent many years after their occurrence.

-

The U.S. Navy's Naval Reactors Headquarters in Washington D.C. could expect to have a number of solutions resulting from their experiences . .

Particularly as the US Navy learned the hard way from the tragic loss of life of all crew from USS Thresher (SSN-593) at sea in the North Atlantic during deep-diving tests in 1963.

SSN-593 was the lead boat of her class of Nuclear-powered attack submarines.

SUBSAFE: The loss of SSN-593 lead to the implementation of a rigorous submarine safety program known as 'Subsafe'.

In 1965 'subsafe' began development of a nuclear-powered deep-submergence research and ocean engineering vehicle, designated 'NR-1'.

The capability of the manned NR1 vastly increased the independence from surface support made possible by nuclear fuel.

NR1 provides a valuable service to the Navy which may or may not be used for a sinking deep water incident of a nuclear waste vessel as you mentioned Phil.
.

If interested further NR1 has the following characteristics:

- Only 400 tonne displacement,

- A 914m operating depth (where at 9 MPa is from: pressure = water density x gravity x depth),

- Retractable bottoming wheels for driving along the sea bed!

- Viewing ports, exterior lighting, color television and still cameras,

- An object recovery claw and manipulator, with gripping and cutting capability.

Source: page 64 of '151 million miles steamed safely on nuclear power' US Navy and US Dept of Energy.

**********

It is clear that South Australia's Government ought to directly address the 'low-probability, high-consequence' risk events such as you've mentioned Phil.

Very good.

ASIDE: The loss of SSN-593 was a time before Royal Commissions and Work Health, Safety Environmental impact assessments.

Phil I just looked up your samples of oil spills from your link:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/the-13-largest-oil-spills-in-history

The South Australian Government ought to view these 'low-probability, high-consequence' events not become complacent.

Phil's link is a good reminder to us all.

A nuclear transshipping flask is very robust, in the event of even something as catastrophic as a sinking event would see no physical damage to the flasks.

Retrieval whilst not necessarily cheap would also be the expense of the sender, not the recipient.

In 1974 Project Azorian saw the US covertly raise the nuclear weapons from a soviet submarine from about 5000m. Now it cost a lot, most of that was due to the secrecy, and it was by no means a trivial excercise, but it was done, it was done safely and a transshipping flask would probably be slightly easier to retrieve. A several large electromagnets on a substantial chain/cable arrangement could be used, no need to raise the whole vessel or even part thereof.

Serious project, but it has been done in the past.

Then there's this neat little fact, forget the waste that's already transshipped about the planet, a great many ships, French, US, Russian, etc transport themselves with nuclear fuel on board. The Russians are so worried they build reactors into ships and intentionally crash them into ice sheets... No a single sinking due to this yet.

Ok, so low probability, high consequence rating for a sinking incident. But it could happen. This sounds like the sort of rating that may have been applied to Fukushima. Terror may elevate the probability I don't know, nor do I know the consequence really, I mean what are the consequences of several hundred (thousands?) of "containers" lost at depth. My initial query was are we consulting more broadly? I ask this because an incident of this nature impacts more than the sender, the transporter and receiver. Cost of recovery being a sender responsibility is cold comfort I'm sure we can all agree.

Steven and Aaron still working as one

Christopher still contributing nothing.

Who pays the bill is largely irrelevant, but the cost of recovery should not be a reason for us to not consider safe storage. There's a cost to the planet potentially from other nations not storing safely, but we as a nation don't seem too concerned about that.

Containers sinking would be a big deal, there certainly wouldn't be thousands, likely not even hundreds, maybe tens. This stuff is dense and hence heavy, there isn't great scope for carrying huge quantities of containers of it on a ship. If something were to happen, off a ship it would go straight down! Which presumably makes subsequent location a bit easier.

We already ship the raw product about the world, we have ships in the world actually carrying the reactors as a fuel source, little concern with those, no more (or less) concern with the end product.

They used to dump it at sea until the world made it illegal in 1993 and it was meant to have ceased then but I'm not surprised Aaron is so concerned now about Australia taking the Worlds High Level Radioactive Waste when he was nowhere to be seen during protests years ago about stopping the dumping of waste into our oceans but Aaron would have us believe that Australia is the only safe place to turn into a Nuclear Waste Dumping Site but this is clearly not the case then Aaron will say that financially it makes sense this is an absolute lie he will try to take the moral high ground and say it's for the good of the world and this is total garbage yes Aaron we are totally aware it's not safe it never has been and never will be safe the only thing that can gaurantee Australia safety is a total refusal to listen to the lies trumpeted from the government and the vocal minority trying to convince us otherwise.

Aaron,
As a point of reference, world now producing 18,143 tonnes used nuclear fuel HLW/annum.
Each tonne of nuclear fuel waste produces 0.74 of a vitrified waste package (500kg).
Annual shipping requirement is (18,143*0.74*500kg = 6.7m tonnes
Average cargo ship holds 25,000 tonnes cargo
For 2016:
Max. average cargo ships required/annum = 268
Max. cargo ships per week arriving in Australian waters with 25,000 tonnes of HLW = 5
Do we really want to do this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiation_cube_chart_EN.png
http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Vitrified_HA_Waste.htm

Phil, you misunderstand the process.

Spent fuel does not equate to HLW.

Spent fuel is reprocessed, I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but about 95% of it is uranium, some might need reinriching, and something like 1% is plutonium.

The uranium is reinriched if necessary, and the plutonium are added back into the reactor as fuel. 'Used nuclear fuel' is about 4% waste. 4% of 268 is something like less than 11 ship.

Not every country will send their waste here, some could store it themselves, some (the Russians might reprocess and keep their own) some might send theirs to the Russians. It might only be that it is 5-8 ships.

OK, thanks Aaron (and Steven), I appreciate the discussion and points taken.
I'm correcting some of the above after your comments.
A citizens jury must be struggling with the detail also but on a scale much greater, by order of magnitude. It's not a reasonable thing to expect from them, but that's another issue.
Not all users re-process their fuel (as you would know) so hard to know what tonnage we're dealing with here. Nor should we forget the existing inventory of 390,000 tonnes HLW (p.92 NFCRCR) that needs to be managed, of which ~90,000 might come to Australia for storage (p.93 NFCRCR).
One presumes these tonnage are final (re-processing considered) as they're quoted on page 93 NFCRCR.
Worth mentioning also that only ~270,000 tonnes of ILW from a global stockpile of 10,000,000 tonnes ILW might come to Australia if we proceed.
This begs the question if the decision to proceed is principally for economic gain (because it isn't solving the worlds ILW and HLW stockpile problem).

HLW material is to be shipped in ~100 tonne Type B packages (each holding ~6 tonne HLW material) that are tested to 200m (p.155) for at least one hour. Does this give anyone confidence that a sinking incident can end well?
I guess I have to question your comment above Aaron: "A nuclear transshipping flask is very robust, in the event of even something as catastrophic as a sinking event would see no physical damage to the flasks."
Anyway:
If we assume the average ship (INF 3 rated) can carry 4,000 tonnes (deadweight), that's approx. 45 Type B packages, containing approx. 270 tonnes of HLW.
That's 330 ship loads of HLW required to deal with the 90,000 tonnes available for Australia. Another 1,000 ships if we consider ILW.
Ongoing is another 18,000 tonnes/annum of HLW produced. I don't know how much of this is reprocessed but I'm guessing another 50 or so ships/annum to Australia, more as new reactors become commissioned.
Over a ten year period we might be looking at 3 ships/week bringing this material into Australian waters. Translate that into days at sea and therefore risk?
Its a big responsibility. If it was indeed solving the worlds nuclear waste issue I think I'd be more supportive in principal but it isn't, perhaps only 25% of it.
It appears an economic decision for South Australia and I understand the driver for that but I'm not convinced that the risks are manageable beyond reasonable doubt.
Its a decision that we debate for all Australians for the next 200 generations +++ (and the oceans and neighbours en-route), all because we need some money now. Our quality of life isn't that bad is it.
Happy to concede to reason, but I'm not there yet.
It's the trans-ocean shipping that worries me. We need to consult far broader than the South Australian population.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/transport-of-nuclear-materials/transport-of-radioactive-materials.aspx
http://commons.wmu.se/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=all_dissertations
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:192258/mmsi:235056178/imo:9372913/vessel:PACIFIC_HERON

I don't have time to reply in full right now, but I do want to quickly say this: not every country reprocesses waste, that I do know, but most countries do. When faced with the difference between paying for 100% of your spent fuel to be stored or just paying for the approx 4% waste to be stored few are going to take the store the 100% option... Very few, so few, it's probably none.

Before we consider too much about the logistics of getting product here, we also need to know what it is we are legislatively allowed to store. If for example we accept only vitrified or ceramic imobilised product then the shipping format might look different to if we take the product in some other form.

Vitrified waste packaged into a composite containment vessel may only need to be carried in a more or less 'standard' container.

I don't know that this is true, I have been conversing with an American that I studied with. He's now quite widely respected in the US 'biological sciences' scene, I brought up this investigation and his exact words, I asked if I could repeat them were: "typical, the US public are heavily engrossed in discussion of whether a cat turd smells better than a dog turd, while Australians are talking about something meaningful. If we're not already, the states will soon be the world's laughing stock'

He certainly wasn't aware of the discussions here, as he implied most Americans are only thinking of the themselves (so too their politicians most likely) right now, and he was firmly of the opinion that the States should have their own repository...

Let's wait on the States to build and look after their own waste instead of us becoming the laughing stock and becoming the world's waste dump Aaron we produce such a miniscule amount of HLW and yes Australia can afford to wait and yes we are better to put the safety of all Australians ahead of the Nuclear Waste Industry and their Toxic Agenda