Dutton said a reactor’s waste would fill a Coke can. Try 27,000 of them   :(

December 19, 2024
Sydney Morning Herald

Australia would confront an unprecedented security and environmental task under the opposition’s nuclear energy plan, which would generate 880 barrels full of highly radioactive spent fuel each year and require secure storage for hundreds of thousands of years.   :(

Last week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton revealed the details of his long-awaited energy policy, which would build 14 gigawatts of nuclear energy generation by 2050 to back up renewable power without generating greenhouse gas emissions.

Peter Dutton once claimed a small modular nuclear reactor would produce only a Coke can’s worth of waste.


But Australia has never had to confront the challenge of storing the toxic byproducts of nuclear power generation, a thorny political issue in some countries with reactors.

Dutton said in June that the waste produced each year by a 450-megawatt reactor, far smaller than a typical generation unit, would be minimal. “If you look at a 450-megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year,” he said.

Dutton was referring to small modular reactors, which are not yet in commercial production. Experts said his calculation was inaccurate and that the reactors in development are expected to produce at least several tonnes of radioactive waste per year.   :(

A typical large-scale nuclear reactor, with a 1-gigawatt capacity, usually generates 30 tonnes of spent fuel a year, according to the World Nuclear Association. This nuclear waste would fill 10 cubic metres, or 10,000 litres.

The opposition claims it would have its first nuclear reactor up and running by 2037, and the entire fleet – on up to seven sites with multiple reactors on each – built before 2050.

When all reactors are operating, the 14 gigawatts of nuclear capacity would produce 140 cubic metres, or 140,000 litres, of waste a year.




This would fill 880 oil barrels, each holding 159 litres.

The Coalition, which was contacted for comment, plans to store nuclear power waste at the same facility that will store it for Australia’s planned nuclear submarines under the AUKUS program. “The prime minister signed up to the nuclear submarines and therefore sent a very clear message to Australians that there are no safety concerns about the latest technology,” Dutton said last Friday.

Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said on Thursday that nuclear energy was the world’s safest form of power generation.

“Thirty-two nations safely manage nuclear power plants today and 50 more are looking at introducing nuclear for the first time,” O’Brien said in a statement.

The spent fuel from a nuclear reactor contains highly radioactive material. Exposure to high levels of radiation can cause skin and blood damage, cataracts, infertility, birth defects and cancer, according to the World Health Organisation.

According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear waste is stored safely around the world and has not caused harm to human health.

The opposition has stated their reactors have an 80-year lifespan, which means they will generate 70,400 barrels over their lifetime.


Using Dutton’s can metric, the 140 cubic metres of spent fuel each year would fit into 373,333 cans, or almost 27,000 cans per reactor.


Over 80 years, Dutton’s fleet of reactors would generate 29,866,640 cans full of waste – more than 2.1 million cans per reactor.

 


Australia generates intermediate-level nuclear waste, which can include used clothing and equipment from nuclear facilities.

Each year, about 40 cubic metres of low-level waste and 5 cubic metres of intermediate-level radioactive waste are generated by Australia’s Lucas Heights nuclear facility outside Sydney, which creates research and medical products. The waste is stored onsite.

Australia would also generate considerable low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste if it had a fleet of 14 reactors, on top of the millions of barrels worth of spent nuclear fuel.

Most countries with nuclear reactors permanently store spent fuel and other nuclear waste in secure facilities, often onsite at power plants. Some spent fuel can also be reprocessed for use again in reactors.

Australia has committed to operate nuclear submarines under the AUKUS pact, and to develop by 2050 a permanent storage facility for the waste generated from their reactors, to be located somewhere in the country on Defence land. Many have speculated the most likely site is Woomera in South Australia.


Nuclear energy
Dutton’s claim nuclear waste would be size of Coke can ‘hard to swallow’
The Albanese government last year abandoned plans for a facility to take medical waste at Kimba in rural South Australia due to community opposition.

More utter drivel from the anti nuclear Luddites.  ::) Some facts here:

https://www.nuclearasia.com/feature/millions-of-tons-of-nuclear-waste-the-biggest-myth-of-nuclear-power/3939/

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-all-the-nuclear-waste-in-the-world/

The coke can comparison is a measure of how much 'waste' every individual would generate over a lifetime of using nuclear power. But when the ALP has to resort to demented rants like that of Margaret Beavis you know they have absolutely nothing in the way of real argument to make.

...

Belgarion wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 11:42am:

More utter drivel from the anti nuclear Luddites.  ::) Some facts here: https://www.nuclearasia.com/feature/millions-of-tons-of-nuclear-waste-the-biggest-myth-of-nuclear-power/3939/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-all-the-nuclear-waste-in-the-world/ The coke can comparison is a measure of how much 'waste' every individual would generate over a lifetime of using nuclear power. But when the ALP has to resort to demented rants like that of Margaret Beavis you know they have absolutely nothing in the way of real argument to make.

I looked at your links and is it correct that of all the waste only 0.01% of that waste is radio active?.

The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled.

https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it#:~:text=The%20generation%20of%20electricity%20from,the%20used%20fuel%20is%20recycled.

whiteknight wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 11:30am:

Australia would confront an unprecedented security and environmental task under the opposition’s nuclear energy plan, which would generate 880 barrels full of highly radioactive spent fuel each year and require secure storage for hundreds of thousands of years.

That sounds more like the waste figures than the radioactive waste figures. Just sayin'. ;)

Assuming people wear disposable gear - that would all be contaminated.  Or if washable, then the water used to wash would be contaminated.  And if wash by air jets, the filters themselves would be contaminated.

The waste isn't just the spent fuel - it's what else that has would be in contact and has to be thrown out.  More than just a can of waste.  Just think of the everyday surgeries with so many disposals used.

And low radioactive waste or not, it will take a lot of space - that needs to be stored somewhere.  And ideally, still be locked safely from people who want to make dirty bombs.

Every time Dutton opens his mouth he just looks more stupid.