Reactor parts for Australian desert dumping?
Decommisioned toxic nuclear reactor parts to be dumped in Australian desert?
JAN 30 2007: Environmentalists have warned against dumping radioactive waste and reactor parts from Australia's Lucas Heights research reactor in the Northen Territory. Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says its not yet known which site in the NT will be chosen as Australia's first central nuclear waste dump. The 50-year-old HIFAR reactor in Sydney's south is being decommissioned. Minister Bishop shut down Australia's first nuclear reactor today...
JAN 30 2007: Environmentalists have warned against dumping radioactive waste and reactor parts from Australia's Lucas Heights research reactor in the Northen Territory. Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says its not yet known which site in the NT will be chosen as Australia's first central nuclear waste dump. The 50-year-old HIFAR reactor in Sydney's south is being decommissioned. Minister Bishop shut down Australia's first nuclear reactor today...
January 30, 2007 marks the end of the Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in the city's south, after almost 50 years of operation. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) says it is confident ongoing problems with Australia's next nuclear reactor "will be fixed by the time it is meant to come on line."
The work of the reactor will be taken over by the new Argentinian-designed research reactor called OPAL. The new $350 million OPAL reactor replaces the old facility, which opened in 1958 as Australia's first nuclear reactor.
ANSTO chief executive Ian Smith says he expects the new reactor to be up and running by April, despite some teething problems in the commissioning phase - citing certain leaks as one of the problems.
The federal government plan to build a nuclear waste dump in the NT. But critics have warned against dumping the Lucas Heights reactor's old radioactive parts in the desert. But Arid Lands Environment Centre spokeswoman Natalie Wasley says it would be much better for the old parts of the reactor to remain at Lucas Heights. "The Australian Nuclear Association have all said that there is room here, they have the technology, they have the capability and they have the storage room," she said. "Also there are trained personnel here who deal with radioactive material, and they'll be on site all the time. So that's definitely a lot better option than sticking it out in a remote area in the desert."
Wilderness Society nuclear spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven says the Federal Government should say where it is planning to dump radioactive waste from the decommissioned site. "We don't believe that the dismantled reactor should be shifted across Australia, through local communities, past people's homes and put in someone's backyard that doesn't want it," she said.
"We actually think that the reactor, now that it's shut down, should stay where it is and be managed locally."
The $50 million decommissioning process has begun with the official shutdown of the facility. Fuel will then be removed and fluid drained from the facility, before radioactive materials within the reactor are left there to decay.
NSW Greens senator Kerry Nettle said she feared the decommissioning process of the old facility would not be as successful as hoped. Science was not far enough advanced to safely dispose of nuclear waste, she said.
"Not one single commercial nuclear power reactor around the world has been successfully decommissioned," Ms Nettle said. "We know from the evidence this nuclear site may never become safe, regardless of any new reactor. We don't have the technological and scientific answers of how to dispose of this waste."
The Wilderness Society called on the Federal Government to fully outline its plans for the disposal of radioactive waste from the reactor. "The Federal Government must make clear to local communities where they plan on storing this nuclear waste that remains toxic for millions of years," said society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven. "Local communities along transport routes will also be concerned about the tonnes of dangerous nuclear waste that will be trucked past their homes."
Over its 40-year life, OPAL will generate several cubic metres of high-level waste, which it intends to store in a remote location in the Northern Territory.
The work of the reactor will be taken over by the new Argentinian-designed research reactor called OPAL. The new $350 million OPAL reactor replaces the old facility, which opened in 1958 as Australia's first nuclear reactor.
ANSTO chief executive Ian Smith says he expects the new reactor to be up and running by April, despite some teething problems in the commissioning phase - citing certain leaks as one of the problems.
The federal government plan to build a nuclear waste dump in the NT. But critics have warned against dumping the Lucas Heights reactor's old radioactive parts in the desert. But Arid Lands Environment Centre spokeswoman Natalie Wasley says it would be much better for the old parts of the reactor to remain at Lucas Heights. "The Australian Nuclear Association have all said that there is room here, they have the technology, they have the capability and they have the storage room," she said. "Also there are trained personnel here who deal with radioactive material, and they'll be on site all the time. So that's definitely a lot better option than sticking it out in a remote area in the desert."
Wilderness Society nuclear spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven says the Federal Government should say where it is planning to dump radioactive waste from the decommissioned site. "We don't believe that the dismantled reactor should be shifted across Australia, through local communities, past people's homes and put in someone's backyard that doesn't want it," she said.
"We actually think that the reactor, now that it's shut down, should stay where it is and be managed locally."
The $50 million decommissioning process has begun with the official shutdown of the facility. Fuel will then be removed and fluid drained from the facility, before radioactive materials within the reactor are left there to decay.
NSW Greens senator Kerry Nettle said she feared the decommissioning process of the old facility would not be as successful as hoped. Science was not far enough advanced to safely dispose of nuclear waste, she said.
"Not one single commercial nuclear power reactor around the world has been successfully decommissioned," Ms Nettle said. "We know from the evidence this nuclear site may never become safe, regardless of any new reactor. We don't have the technological and scientific answers of how to dispose of this waste."
The Wilderness Society called on the Federal Government to fully outline its plans for the disposal of radioactive waste from the reactor. "The Federal Government must make clear to local communities where they plan on storing this nuclear waste that remains toxic for millions of years," said society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven. "Local communities along transport routes will also be concerned about the tonnes of dangerous nuclear waste that will be trucked past their homes."
Over its 40-year life, OPAL will generate several cubic metres of high-level waste, which it intends to store in a remote location in the Northern Territory.
Indymedia ist eine Veröffentlichungsplattform, auf der jede und jeder selbstverfasste Berichte publizieren kann. Eine Überprüfung der Inhalte und eine redaktionelle Bearbeitung der Beiträge finden nicht statt. Bei Anregungen und Fragen zu diesem Artikel wenden sie sich bitte direkt an die Verfasserin oder den Verfasser.
(Moderationskriterien von Indymedia Deutschland)
(Moderationskriterien von Indymedia Deutschland)
Ergänzungen
Govt's disingenuous nuclear power debate
January 30, 2007: Possible nuclear power sites tagged: Canberra-based think tank, the Australia Institute, has identified at least 19 potential locations for nuclear power plant sites. Two thirds of Australians oppose nuclear power plants in their local area according to new research by the Australia Institute. The finding is made in Who Wants a Nuclear Power Plant?, a paper analysing support for nuclear power in Australia by Institute Deputy Director Andrew Macintosh...
"We can not have this debate without considering siting issues..."
Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island have been named in the Australia Institute's final list of possible sites around Australia. Deputy director of the left-wing institute Andrew McIntosh says the sites all met four primary criteria.
"First one was sites near the national electricity market or electricity grid," he said. "The second was near centre of demand, the third one was near transport infrastructure and the final one was near the coast, because you need water or you need sea water for cooling purposes."
However, new research by the institute suggests two-thirds of Australians are opposed to having a nuclear power plant in their local area. Their paper found 50 per cent of people are against having nuclear power plants in Australia, but opposition increases when people consider the prospect of a plant built in their neighbourhood.
"At the most basic level, the public cannot accurately evaluate whether it is willing to support a nuclear industry unless it has an idea about where the power plants are likely to be located. In the absence of this information, the Government is asking the community to make decisions in the abstract without being fully informed," says Mr McIntosh in the research paper, "Siting Nuclear Power Plants in Australia - Where would they go?."
Mr McIntosh says opposition is highest in middle income households and among women. "One of the real blockages to nuclear power being an option is the extent of opposition to it," he said. "But it's mainly because we need to solve climate change rapidly and with this amount of opposition you're just not going to get there. It's going to take you two decades to get anywhere near the position where you're going to be ready to establish a large scale nuclear power industry."
Polling for the Institute by Newspoll shows that while 50 per cent of people oppose the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia, opposition escalates when people consider the prospect of a plant being sited in their local area.
"Middle Australia is most concerned," Mr Macintosh said. "A large 73 per cent of middle income households are opposed to living near a nuclear plant, compared to 61 per cent of low income and 63 per cent of high income households. A large proportion of women (75 per cent) and people with children (72 per cent) are also opposed to living near a nuclear power plant."
In a second paper, Siting Nuclear Power Plants in Australia, Mr Macintosh identifies 19 likely sites for nuclear power plants in Australia.
Launching the papers today, Institute Director Dr Clive Hamilton said "Overseas
experience shows that the siting of power plants is one of the most politically contentious aspects of the nuclear debate. The Prime Minister has called for a thorough and full-blooded debate about nuclear energy," Dr Hamilton said.
"We can not have this debate without considering siting issues"
Based on four primary and six secondary criteria, including proximity to seawater for cooling and access to the national electricity grid, areas identified as possible nuclear plant sites are:
· in Queensland – Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg,
Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island;
· in NSW/ACT – Port Stephens, Central Coast, Botany Bay, Port Kembla and Jervis
Bay/Sussex Inlet;
· in Victoria – South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Phillip and Portland; and
· in South Australia – Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port Augusta/Port
Pirie.
-----
TAI RESEARCH PAPERS:
Siting Nuclear Power Plants in Australia: Where would they go? - January 2007, A Macintosh:
Who Wants a Nuclear Power Plant: Support for nuclear power in Australia - January 2007, A Macintosh:
SOURCES:
THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE WEBSITE:
Media release - TAI
Possible nuclear power sites tagged in Qld - ABC
perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=45025
Where to with the radioactive waste?
"We don't believe that the dismantled reactor should be shifted across Australia, through local communities, past people's homes and put in someone's backyard that doesn't want it," she said.
Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop has shut down Australia's first nuclear reactor.
The 50-year-old HIFAR reactor in Sydney's south is being decommissioned to make way for a new research reactor called OPAL.
The Wilderness Society's nuclear spokeswoman, Imogen Zethoven, says the Federal Government should say where it is planning to dump radioactive waste from the decommissioned site.
"We don't believe that the dismantled reactor should be shifted across Australia, through local communities, past people's homes and put in someone's backyard that doesn't want it," she said.
"We actually think that the reactor, now that it's shut down, should stay where it is and be managed locally."
ANSTO chief executive Dr Ian Smith says he expects the new reactor to be up and running by April, despite some teething problems in the commissioning phase.
"This is simply a leak of light water coolant into the heavy water, this doesn't constitute a safety hazard," he said.
Source: