Criticisms and Casks

isfsi-trimmedThe report from The Australia Institute, commissioned by the Conservation Council of South Australia, entitled Digging for Answers is arguably the premier critique of the conclusions of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, which identified lucrative potential opportunities in permanent international used reactor fuel stewardship. These and other organisations hold an ideological opposition to any involvement in the fuel cycle, and would ideally prefer everyone just stop finding out about it.

As such, I have prepared a page to host a detailed rebuttal of The Australia Institute’s strikingly superficial analysis, which was submitted for consideration by the Joint Committee on the findings of the NFCRC, and I encourage all to have a read. In addition, the transfer of used nuclear fuel to the kind of dry cask storage which has been considered in detail by the Royal Commssion, along with rare pictures, has been provided to help with a wider familiarity of this routine materials management process. Please share it widely.

The Dry Cask Storage Process

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Criticisms and Casks

  1. I understand the Areva casks in a shed at Lucas Heights will go to Barndioota if approved. Noting that a report has proposed that Liddell NSW coal baseload be replaced with light water SMRs then some way of transporting new and used fuel interstate needs to be established. If SA did MOX chemical reprocessing (or perhaps mechanical reprocessing via an AFCR) the containers would have to be re-opened.

    I think SA could stash unusable waste much cheaper than Finland. I notice from Google Earth that the depleting Challenger gold mine is 70 km equidistant from both the Perth and Darwin rail lines. Start with ‘Aussie’ waste then consider foreign waste.

    • An alternative would be to expand the partnership with South Korea beyond storing their UNF to include adoption of pryo-processing and combine it with ANSTO Synroc for disposal of 300 year final waste.

      http://www.sacsess.eu/Docs/IWSProgrammes/04-SACSESSIWS-IT%20Kim(KAERI).pdf

      This would also help Australia gain insights into their rapid builds of PWRs and CANDUs, and even be a customer for their SMRs when we get serious about climate action as a nation.

    • RE: “If SA did MOX chemical reprocessing (or perhaps mechanical reprocessing via an AFCR) the containers would have to be re-opened.”
      Why ?
      AREVA already extracted all the U & Pu from the old HIFAR fuel.
      The return material is just vtrified fission products + some TRUs like Americium & Curium.
      The only reason you might want to re-open the containers is to re-package for geological disposal, once a GDF becomes available.

      • I was talking about spent fuel from future east coast power reactors not the ex HIFAR material.

        I agree with Oscar that SA should get mid sized non-gas dispatchable generation, able to complement wind. That saves half a bill on a new NSW connector 85% supplied by coal. Thinking ahead it would be good if that SA generator was of a waste munching type. If Liddell and Hazelwood are replaced by light water NP the spent fuel has to come back to SA in suitable containers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s