Australian Politics Forum - World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #30 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:21pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

... wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:15pm:

for greens_win:

Note how NZ (christuchurch) is positioned directly over a fault, while Australia sits comfortably in the middle of a plate.

newcastle ?

Ahh yes the newcastle quake that registered a mighty 5.6. Do you know what damage would be caused by a magnitude 5.6 earthquake in an area, or building designed to tolerate earthquakes?

Nil. None. Zero.

they happen all the time in NZ, and nobody even notices.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #31 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:23pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:11pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:

Get a reality check please.

You dont make a country great by taking the worst bits from the rest of the world. You make a country great by taking the best bits.

Anyway, surely Antarctica is better suited... especially when all the snow melts.

but we could have been doing this for 20 years and you wouldnt even have known. it would be transported and stored completely away from any communities. we have the space and we have the geology. in that we are literalyl UNIQUE.

Sorry, I just cant imagine how any money could make me store something toxic for 10,000 years. The ongoing costs would be horrific. I can just imagine that after a mere 100 years, all the income as been spent, and we discover its leaking into the great artisian basin, and we'll have to front up the bill to move it.

Is your only positive the fees we can charge ?
No one will pay the "true" 10,000 year cost.

As with most energy sources, the polution cost is not factored into the price.

Or safety ? If spent rods are what terrorists want ,then all of a sudden we become a greater target for theft.
So wed have to guard it for 10,000 years. A crew of 1000 security personal (min), earning $50,000 compounded per year with inflation equates to about $1.5 gazillion

you dont build it above an aquifer and esp not the GAB. you know there is a lot of country outside the GAB right??? eg ALL of Wa and most of SA???

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #32 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:27pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:11pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:

Get a reality check please.

You dont make a country great by taking the worst bits from the rest of the world. You make a country great by taking the best bits.

Anyway, surely Antarctica is better suited... especially when all the snow melts.

but we could have been doing this for 20 years and you wouldnt even have known. it would be transported and stored completely away from any communities. we have the space and we have the geology. in that we are literalyl UNIQUE.

Sorry, I just cant imagine how any money could make me store something toxic for 10,000 years. The ongoing costs would be horrific. I can just imagine that after a mere 100 years, all the income as been spent, and we discover its leaking into the great artisian basin, and we'll have to front up the bill to move it.

Is your only positive the fees we can charge ?
No one will pay the "true" 10,000 year cost.

As with most energy sources, the polution cost is not factored into the price.

Or safety ? If spent rods are what terrorists want ,then all of a sudden we become a greater target for theft.
So wed have to guard it for 10,000 years. A crew of 1000 security personal (min), earning $50,000 compounded per year with inflation equates to about $1.5 gazillion

the facility would be about 500kms from ANYTHING built on level ground where you can see anyone coming for long enough to more than deal with a problem. the security needs would be relatively small because you simply cant get anywhere near it without being seen - even by plane. the storage is underground so it is not at risk from attack.

and anyhow... dont you think that vastly improviing the worlds nuclear safety is a good thing? you are happy to damge the economy for a carbon tax all in the name of 'leading the world' but when you can ACTUALLY lead the world and ACTAULLY make a difference and earn a fortune at the same time you say no??

or is your argument the same lame NIMBY one? not in my backyard?/

weak.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #33 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:28pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

you dont build it above an aquifer and esp not the GAB. you know there is a lot of country outside the GAB right??? eg ALL of Wa and most of SA???

I think you are missing the point. 10,000 years is so long that its 5 times longer than the birth of christ to now.
To manage something toxic for that long is beyond the comprehension of any economic model available to us.

How many times would it need rebuilding in that period ?

Its location could be a vast lake in that period. The scenarios are endless.

But you havent given me a good reason to do it yet ?

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #34 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:28pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

... wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:15pm:

for greens_win:

Note how NZ (christuchurch) is positioned directly over a fault, while Australia sits comfortably in the middle of a plate.

newcastle ?

an earthquake that by world standards was a trivial one. and thats the worst we can dish up?? a poperly reinforced setup wouldnt even FEEL it.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #35 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:30pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

you dont build it above an aquifer and esp not the GAB. you know there is a lot of country outside the GAB right??? eg ALL of Wa and most of SA???

I think you are missing the point. 10,000 years is so long that its 5 times longer than the birth of christ to now.
To manage something toxic for that long is beyond the comprehension of any economic model available to us.

How many times would it need rebuilding in that period ?

Its location could be a vast lake in that period.

and here is the point that you are missing - along with everyone else

THE WASTE IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.

this policy wouldnt create more waste - only store it vastly more safely.

Im trying to work out how storing nuclear waste vastly more safely is somehow a bad policy? please explain, if you can!

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #36 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:32pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

the facility would be about 500kms from ANYTHING built on level ground where you can see anyone coming for long enough to more than deal with a problem. the security needs would be relatively small because you simply cant get anywhere near it without being seen - even by plane. the storage is underground so it is not at risk from attack.

In the last 200 years we've gone from the horse to supersonic jet fighters. The next 200 will probably also be massive leaps. 500km or undergound wont mean sh1t. Now jump ahead 50 times that period and dare to dream what we'd be up against.

Quote:

and anyhow... dont you think that vastly improviing the worlds nuclear safety is a good thing? you are happy to damge the economy for a carbon tax all in the name of 'leading the world' but when you can ACTUALLY lead the world and ACTAULLY make a difference and earn a fortune at the same time you say no??

Unfortunetly, it will cost us a fortune, and wont make the world one bit safer.
Your basically taking the quick buck now, but lumbering future generations with the ongoing costs (much like your climate change views)

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #37 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:36pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:30pm:

[

Im trying to work out how storing nuclear waste vastly more safely is somehow a bad policy? please explain, if you can!

The people who store it unsafely are the ones least likely to be able to afford to ship it to Australia. Especially when they see our 10,000 year storage costs.

Grin

They'll just keep it.

Back to top

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #38 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:38pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

I could not think of a worse policy than Australia becoming the worlds nuclear waste dumping ground, no matter how much they paid us.

Fair enough that if we get nukes we keep our own waste, but to take the rest of the worlds toxic waste?

Madness.

why?

1) we are the safest place on earth to keep it
2) we will literally make the world a safer place
3) we can make a fortune out of it for bugger-all effort
4)the risk is extraordinarily low and is much lower than leaving it lying around in thrid-rate countries to be stoilen by terrorists

Safest political ?
if so, war torn areas were once safe too.

Safest as far as earthquakes
yet are we. Christchurch shows there are fault lines we are unaware of.

Safest as for protecting our scares fresh water. Look at how easily water assets are damages. Oil fire in Adelaide damaging waterways.

If we are out to make the world a safer place, then let's not dig up the uranium and this will price nuclear out of existence across the planet.

moron. the christchurch fault lines have been known for centuries. and do you recall the massive earthquake damage in australia? no? funny that. because we virtually never have them and rarely enough to cause damage nevermind deaths.

No, it wasn't known for centuries.

That's why the guard was down.

A dormant fault line could be anywhere.

Back to top

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here? Reply #39 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:38pm ......so whaddya do? The waste already exists. It's not going away. Even if the 'ongoing costs' for a dump are a lot (they're not) something still needs to be done with the waste. Ideas?
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #40 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:41pm

... wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:21pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

... wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:15pm:

for greens_win:

Note how NZ (christuchurch) is positioned directly over a fault, while Australia sits comfortably in the middle of a plate.

newcastle ?

Ahh yes the newcastle quake that registered a mighty 5.6. Do you know what damage would be caused by a magnitude 5.6 earthquake in an area, or building designed to tolerate earthquakes?

Nil. None. Zero.

they happen all the time in NZ, and nobody even notices.

is that why NZ opposes nuclear?

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #41 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:43pm

... wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:38pm:

......so whaddya do?

The waste already exists. It's not going away.

Even if the 'ongoing costs' for a dump are a lot (they're not) something still needs to be done with the waste.

Ideas?

I like the idea that if you use it, you keep it.

Thereby pricing polution into the fuel costs without actually officially doing it.

As you may have noticed, I am a massive fan of pricing polution into the economic cycle.
Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #42 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:43pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

the facility would be about 500kms from ANYTHING built on level ground where you can see anyone coming for long enough to more than deal with a problem. the security needs would be relatively small because you simply cant get anywhere near it without being seen - even by plane. the storage is underground so it is not at risk from attack.

In the last 200 years we've gone from the horse to supersonic jet fighters. The next 200 will probably also be massive leaps. 500km or undergound wont mean sh1t. Now jump ahead 50 times that period and dare to dream what we'd be up against.

Quote:

and anyhow... dont you think that vastly improviing the worlds nuclear safety is a good thing? you are happy to damge the economy for a carbon tax all in the name of 'leading the world' but when you can ACTUALLY lead the world and ACTAULLY make a difference and earn a fortune at the same time you say no??

Unfortunetly, it will cost us a fortune, and wont make the world one bit safer.
Your basically taking the quick buck now, but lumbering future generations with the ongoing costs (much like your climate change views)

you really are creating ludicrous scenarios. do you really think the world is safer now with most HIGH LEVEL nuclear waste being guarded by underpaid untrained guards in leaky facilities from teh soviet era? the americans look after their waste well. the rest of the world does not. even when they store it secureuly it is close to popualted areas because thats all they have - opulated areas.

all you are doing is looking at the absolute worst case scenario whiel totally ignoring LIKELY scenarios. when the first dirty-bomb attack is made it will be from stolen material from these kinds of places. we would be able to secure thesi kind of stuff much much safer than anywhere else onthe planet.

but not in my backyard, right??? andrei-like self interest rtules, correct?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #43 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:43pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:11pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:

Get a reality check please.

You dont make a country great by taking the worst bits from the rest of the world. You make a country great by taking the best bits.

Anyway, surely Antarctica is better suited... especially when all the snow melts.

but we could have been doing this for 20 years and you wouldnt even have known. it would be transported and stored completely away from any communities. we have the space and we have the geology. in that we are literalyl UNIQUE.

Sorry, I just cant imagine how any money could make me store something toxic for 10,000 years. The ongoing costs would be horrific. I can just imagine that after a mere 100 years, all the income as been spent, and we discover its leaking into the great artisian basin, and we'll have to front up the bill to move it.

Is your only positive the fees we can charge ?
No one will pay the "true" 10,000 year cost.

As with most energy sources, the polution cost is not factored into the price.

Or safety ? If spent rods are what terrorists want ,then all of a sudden we become a greater target for theft.
So wed have to guard it for 10,000 years. A crew of 1000 security personal (min), earning $50,000 compounded per year with inflation equates to about $1.5 gazillion

the facility would be about 500kms from ANYTHING built on level ground where you can see anyone coming for long enough to more than deal with a problem. the security needs would be relatively small because you simply cant get anywhere near it without being seen - even by plane. the storage is underground so it is not at risk from attack.

and anyhow... dont you think that vastly improviing the worlds nuclear safety is a good thing? you are happy to damge the economy for a carbon tax all in the name of 'leading the world' but when you can ACTUALLY lead the world and ACTAULLY make a difference and earn a fortune at the same time you say no??

or is your argument the same lame NIMBY one? not in my backyard?/

So terrorists could attack the nuclear waste in Australian waters, in Australian ports, in Australian cities, on Australian roads, on Australian rails.

So a world nuclear waste dump is very dangerous for Australia
weak.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: World's Nuclear Waste Dump Here?
Reply #44 - Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:45pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:30pm:

[

Im trying to work out how storing nuclear waste vastly more safely is somehow a bad policy? please explain, if you can!

The people who store it unsafely are the ones least likely to be able to afford to ship it to Australia. Especially when they see our 10,000 year storage costs.

Grin

They'll just keep it.

an opinion completely at odds with established international doctrine. what happened with all the nuclear clean up after the fall of the soviet union?? the yanks and the rest of the first word paid for the cleanup and storage. it would STILL be like that.

so what is this? desperately trolling around for every posible unlikely scenario to argue against what is a good idea?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged