Hacker News Reader

Comment by guidedlight | Hacker News Reader

There is an answer to this: Australia.

Australia is probably the best country in the world to safely store nuclear waste. Sparse population, and almost no tectonic movement. It already has areas which are radioactive too (from historical nuclear testing)

Australia is also currently in the beginning stages of a major energy crisis, which is partly caused by Japan (Some background, Australia signed a major LPG export agreement that intended to fulfill using coal stem gas reserves. When these reserves didn't deliver the quantities required, they instead raided the local domestic supply). You can currently purchase Australian gas in Japan for less than you can in Australia.

So Japan could directly contribute to Australia's immediate and long term energy security, in exchange for nuclear waste storage.

View on HN

As far as I understand, the reactors there are still active. The reactors nuclear waste is not like regular cargo, you cant just pick it up on a crane and move it a 100 meter away let alone another continent. They are having difficulties making a robot that can study the reactor because it's so radioactive. A person would die in less than a minute near that reactor.

Maybe they should dig deep into the earth and then let it merge with the earth's nuclear core :)

In order to keep the reactors cool, they pump 400 tonnes of water through the reactors everyday. This water has to be stored in tanks after that. The radiation seems to be never ending and they will run out of the space to store this water in a couple of years. There is also the radioactive debris around the place that they have to take care of.

We have the science to create energy from nuclear fission, but the science to deal with the aftermaths of a nuclear accident is still a work in progress.

Maybe they should dig deep into the earth and then let it merge with the earth's nuclear core :)

Problem is it'll merge with the water table first. :-)

Why can't they run the same water through the reactor again after the water cools?

Because it's highly radioactive.

So? It's not like it's any worse at cooling because of it. After all, nearly all nuclear reactors use highly irradiated water for cooling in the first cooling loop.

its not highly radioactive, its less radioactive than when it came out.

Personal opinion inbound...

This will never happen.

Public opinion will be completely against any proposal to do this. Partly NIMBYism, but also legitimate fear of a bungled process which exposes the public to radiation risk (e.g. a truck/ship crash). This would also potentially tarnish the international brand of Australian tourism and agriculture industries, which both like to project an image of a clean and protected environment.

Any smart politician will recognise the nightmarish public relations battle is not worth the reward for them personally, so the project will never get a fair hearing to begin with.

Personally I would support the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in Australia in principle. But I don't think it will happen unless our economy goes right down the toilet and we become significantly more desperate for funds.

I don't entirely understand your proposed solution.

It appears to be this:

Japan sells LPG sourced from Australia back to Australia (presumably at some price less than the Australian spot price, and perhaps more than the Japanese contracted price), and then Australia agrees to also take nuclear waste (presumably getting paid for it too).

Is that roughly correct?

There are quite a few problems with this:

Firstly, I believe the company that signed the long term gas purchase agreements isn't the same as the nuclear company, so they might have a problem.

Secondly, Australia has plenty of gas reserves, and this is way too simplistic: "When these reserves didn't deliver the quantities required, they instead raided the local domestic supply" - the problem was more that many gas seam and LNG mining projects didn't go ahead in the 2009-12 timeframe because the big drop in prices meant the economics didn't add up).

Thirdly, Australia doesn't want the waste. The South Australian government came the closest of any in recommending it, but it was so roundly rejected in community consultation that it has become apparent it is political poison. No party will ever support it, and if one did every other party will use that to win lots of seats.

Fourthly, Japan selling the LNG back to Australia means that Japan has an energy shortage. That isn't helpful to them.

No. Its too risky for Australia. This can get polluted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin

Taking your suggestion a bit further: it seems like we need a cap and trade system for nuclear material. The challenge is that it's also dangerous just to transport the stuff... (Though carbon cap and trade just works like electronic banking: no physical CO2 gets shipped around, just accounting).

Bit of a shit deal though. I'm hoping Elon comes through with the goods instead.

How does that help Japan? If they dump it in the ocean (which is a proposal from the article), then we are screwed too.

Japan has the resources to help Australia, without increasing your power bill even more.

Basically Australia can help Japan in exchange for a return to cheap energy.

He or she means Elon is building a battery farm to help smooth Australia's power out...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com