How Nuclear Power Causes Global Warming, The Progressive, September 21, 2016 Harvey Wasserman
Supporters of nuclear power like to argue that nukes are the key to combatting climate change. Here’s why they are dead wrong.
Every nuclear generating station spews about two-thirds of the energy it burns inside its reactor core into the environment. Only one-third is converted into electricity. Another tenth of that is lost in transmission. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Nuclear fission is the most water intensive method of the principal thermoelectric generation options in terms of the amount of water withdrawn from sources. In 2008, nuclear power plants withdrew eight times as much freshwater as natural gas plants per unit of energy produced, and up to 11 percent more than the average coal plant.
Every day, large reactors like the two at Diablo Canyon, California, individually dump about 1.25 billion gallons of water into the ocean at temperatures up to 20 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the natural environment.
Diablo’s “once-through cooling system” takes water out of the ocean and dumps it back superheated, irradiated and laden with toxic chemicals. Many U.S. reactors use cooling towers which emit huge quantities of steam and water vapor that also directly warm the atmosphere.
These emissions are often chemically treated to prevent algae and other growth that could clog the towers. Those chemicals can then be carried downwind, along with radiation from the reactors. In addition, hundreds of thousands of birds die annually by flying into the reactor domes and towers.
The temperature increase in the bodies of water can have serious adverse effects on aquatic life. Warm water holds less oxygen than cold water, thus discharge from once-through cooling systems can create a “temperature squeeze” that elevates the metabolic rate for fish. Additionally, suction pipes that are used to intake water can draw plankton, eggs and larvae into the plant’s machinery, while larger organisms can be trapped against the protective screens of the pipes. Blocked intake screens have led to temporary shut downs and NRC fines at a number of plants.
And that’s not all.
All nuclear reactors emit Carbon 14, a radioactive isotope, invalidating the industry’s claim that reactors are “carbon free.” And the fuel that reactors burn is carbon-intensive. Themining, milling, and enrichment processes needed to produce the pellets that fill the fuel rods inside the reactor cores all involve major energy expenditures, nearly all of it based on coal, oil, or gas.
And of course there’s the problem of nuclear waste. After more than a half-century of well-funded attempts, we’ve seen no solution for the management of atomic power’s intensely radioactive waste. There’s the “low-level” waste involving enormous quantities of troublesome irradiated liquids and solid trash that must be dealt with outside the standard civilian waste stream. And that handling involves fossil fuels burned in the process of transportation, management, and disposal as well ………
There are no credible estimates of the global warming damage done by the intensely hotexplosions at the four Fukushima reactors, or at Chernobyl, or at any other past and future reactor meltdowns or blowups. …..
Overall, the idea that atomic power is “clean” or “carbon free” or “emission free” is a very expensive misconception, especially when compared to renewable energy, efficiency, and conservation. Among conservation, efficiency, solar and wind power technologies, there are no global warming analogs to the heat, carbon, and radioactive waste impacts of nuclear power. No green technology kills anywhere near the number of marine organisms that die through reactor cooling systems.
Rooftop solar panels do not lose ten percent of the power they generate to transmission, as happens with virtually all centralized power generators. S. David Freeman, former head of numerous large utilities and author of All Electric America: A Climate Solution and the Hopeful Future, says: “Renewables are cheaper and safer. That argument is winning. Let’s stick to it.”
No terrorist will ever threaten one of our cities by blowing up a solar panel. But the nuclear industry that falsely claims its dying technology doesn’t cause global warming does threaten the future of our planet.
6.4 quake hits Japan southeast of Tokyo, Rt.com 23 Sep, 2016 A powerful 6.4-magnitude earthquake rocked Japan some 230km southeast of the country’s capital, Tokyo, at a depth of 10km on Thursday night, the US Geological Survey (USGS) reported on its website.
Japan’s Meteorological Agency reported that the earthquake “has caused no damage to Japan,” while adding that “slight sea-level changes in coastal regions” may be observed.
No immediate tsunami warning has been issued.
Small tremors were reportedly felt in nine Japanese prefectures, including in Fukushima and Tokyo……..https://www.rt.com/news/360331-tokyo-southeast-quake-reaction/#.V-R_nRi_Fis.facebook
Art exhibition to mark 60th anniversary of nuclear testing in Maralinga asks what has changed ABC Central Victoria By Larissa Romensky , 22 Sept 16, A national touring exhibition of artwork marks 60 years after the British government exploded an atomic bomb in South Australia’s outback.
On September 27, 1956 the British government conducted its first atomic test at Maralinga.
In total, seven nuclear bomb blasts were detonated between 1956 and 1967 in the southern part of the Great Victoria Desert in South Australia followed by more than 600 “minor tests”.
These were not the first nuclear tests to be conducted in Australia, but the term Maralinga, an Aboriginal word for thunder, became the name associated with this chapter in Australian history.
Black Mist Burnt Country, is a national touring exhibition that revisits the events and its location through the work of more than 30 Indigenous and non-Indigenous artists.
Curator JD Mittman said the title refers to the “mysterious” black mist that hovered over the country after the first test at Emu Field in South Australia in 1953 that “badly” affected Aboriginal families at Wallatinna.
“[Yankunytjatjara man] Yami Lester testified that people got very sick, some died, and he lost his eyesight,” Mr Mittman said.
Burnt country was in reference to the enormous heat generated by an atomic bomb blast, 1,000 times hotter than the sun.
“The blast melts the ground to glass, also called Trinitide, after the Trinity test ," he said.
Inspired by Jonathan Kumintjarra Brown
Jonathan Kumintjara Brown was a member of the stolen generation and later in life connected with his family in South Australia and found out about the atomic testing of his traditional land.
Mr Mittman said the exhibition was originally inspired by the artist's work entitled Marilinga before the atomic test.
"The question that came to mind immediately was: if there's a work that depicts the country before the atomic tests then surely there must be work that is also about the period after or during the tests," he said.
The work in the exhibition spans seven decades from across the globe from the first atomic test in Hiroshima to the present day, from both private and public collections........http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-21/exhibition-to-mark-60th-anniversary-of-nuclear-testing/7865192
Dan Monceaux to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 22 Sept 16 On his current delegation to Finland, Premier Weatherill has been accompanied by Bill Muirhead (Agent-General for South Australia), Madeleine Richardson (CE of CARA) and John Mansfield (chair of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Consultation and Response Agency (CARA) advisory board).
Muirhead is an advertising man with a political bend who has been busy promoting SA as a destination for defence and mining investment since his appointment as Agent-General in 2007.
375 top scientists warn of ‘real, serious, immediate’ climate threat http://www.skepticalscience.com/375-nas-warn-climate-threat.html 21 September 2016 by John Abraham
Yesterday, 375 of the world’s top scientists, including 30 Nobel Prize winners, published an open letter regarding climate change. In the letter, the scientists report that the evidence is clear: humans are causing climate change. We are now observing climate change and its affect across the globe. The seas are rising, the oceans are warming, the lower atmosphere is warming, the land is warming, ice is melting, rainfall patterns are changing and the ocean is becoming more acidic.
These facts are incontrovertible. No reputable scientist disputes them. It is the truth.
Despite these facts, the letter reports that the US presidential campaign has seen claims that the earth isn’t warming, or it is only a natural warming, or that climate changeis a hoax. These claims are false. The claims are made by politicians or real estate developers with no scientific experience. These people who deny the reality of climate change are not scientists. Continue reading
Costly Japanese prototype nuclear reactor shuts down http://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2016/09/costly-japanese-prototype-nuclear-reactor-shuts-down/ By Jack Loughran, September 21, 2016
The Monju nuclear reactor in Japan, which has operated for less than a year in more than two decades at a cost of 1tn yen (£7.6bn), is set to be scrapped. The prototype fast-breeder reactor was designed to burn plutonium from spent fuel at conventional reactors to create more fuel than it consumes. Continue reading
The government has the last say on the decision so as most people before me have said, no matter how many people are against it, the whole nuclear consultation process is a farce. The Know Nuclear displays tell half truths and make nuclear storage sound incredibly safe without adding any of the negatives. For a state which is struggling economically there seems to have been a helluva lot of money already spent in the name of nuclear. I don’t trust the government. We only need to look at the bungled RAH project and our useless desalination project to realize how inept the state government is. If SA becomes the world nuclear dumping ground, it will be the WORST decision an Australian government has ever made.
Steve Charles 20 Sep 2016
The article in today’s Australian demonstrates that the consultation process is a farce. Weatherill decided long ago that he wanted to turn SA into the world’s nuclear waste dump, and the “consultation” that has been going on is all for show. We are all being led by the nose to a conclusion that he wants, and the taxpayer pays for it all. Weatherill should be treated with the contempt he deserves.
It would be a disaster for SA to have a nuclear waste dump here.
Kay Dl 18 Sep 2016
Jay Weatherill will never get consent to go ahead from the South Austrlain public, to consent to a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. We know better despite what the media is reporting about the statistics. He must lose his position as Premier if the rest of the Labour Party has any sense.
Peter Lazic > Kay Dl 18 Sep 2016
I agree, but hot to get him kicked out before he takes the next step down the path of a nuclear waste dump.
The decision was made long ago. We are all being led like lambs to the slaughter. Weatherill must be stopped.
Steve Ingham 13 Sep 2016
Looks as though ourgov has lost interest in this discussion board. Ourgov’s rep last commented on 15 Aug. Maybe we are being very dull and boring. Any suggestions on how to spice this board up a bit.
Mary-Ann Lovejoy > Steve Ingham 16 Sep 2016
They were too busy at the Royal Show, handing out pretty “Nuclear” balloons to little children. True! I’ve had several reports from unhappy grandparents and parents, who thought it was an outrageous piece of propaganda on the government’s behalf. Every day, it seems that more people are being made aware, and they are not happy about this proposal. http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-community-discussion-consent
Peter Lazic 16 Sept 16 What consent does Jay Weatherill have to spend $600 million dollars of taxpayer money to plan a nuclear waste dump, when the proposed dump may never get approved. This and the money spent to date on the Royal Commission, the road show, now TV advertisements, etc, is obscene and immoral
Noel Wauchope > Peter Lazic 16 Sep 2016
Especially as the SA Law says:
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or
operation of nuclear waste storage facility Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NUCLEAR%20WASTE%20STORAGE%20FACILITY%20(PROHIBITION)%20ACT%202000/CURRENT/2000.68.UN.PDF
For the first time, Obama requires U.S. government to factor climate into national security policy,WP By Juliet Eilperin September 21 President Obama signed a presidential memorandum Wednesday establishing that climate-change impacts must be factored into the development of all national security-related doctrine, policies and plans.
The move signals Obama’s determination to exercise his executive authority during his final months in office to elevate the issue of climate in federal decision-making, even though it remains unclear whether his successor will embrace this approach.
Under the directive, 20 federal agencies and offices that work on climate science, intelligence and national security must “collaborate to ensure the best information on climate impacts is available to strengthen our national security” through the new Federal Climate and National Security Working Group. That group must release a climate change and national security action plan in 90 days. All the relevant agencies must then identify steps to implement it.
Speaking to reporters on a conference call, White House officials said this would spur a more specific and focused strategy when it comes to both identifying how different regions of the world would be affected by climate change and how to respond……..https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/21/for-the-first-time-obama-requires-u-s-government-to-factor-climate-into-national-security-policy/?utm_term=.a5aae6b8a2bf
How Nuclear Power Causes Global Warming, The Progressive, September 21, 2016 Harvey Wasserman“……As for the high-level waste, this remains one of humankind’s most persistent and dangerous problems. Atomic apologists have claimed that the intensely radioactive spent fuel rods can somehow be usable for additional power generation. But after a half-century of efforts, with billions of dollars spent, all attempts to do that have utterly failed. There are zero successful reactors capable of producing more reactor fuel than they use, or able to derive more energy from the tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel rods they create.
Some reactors, like Fukushima, use “mixed-oxide” fuels that have proven to be extremely dirty and expensive. It’s possible some of this “MOX” fuel containing plutonium, actually fissioned at Fukushima Unit Three, raising terrifying questions about the dangers of its use. The mushroom cloud that appears on video as Fukushima Unit Three exploded stands as an epic warning against further use of these impossible-to-manage fuels.
The MOX facility under construction near Aiken, South Carolina, is now projected to require another ten years to build with another ten possible after that to phase into production. U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said on September 13, 2016, at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that the mismanaged project was “impossible” to carry out and that it could cost $30 billion to $50 billion. Even the current pro-nuclear Congress won’t fully fund the project and the Department of Energy DOE continues to recommend abandoning it…….
Atomic apologists argue that the disposal of high-level reactor wastes should be a relatively simple problem, lacking only the political will to proceed. The industry touts New Mexico’sWaste Isolation Pilot Project, or WIPP, which has long been the poster child for military attempts to deal with high-level trash from the nuclear weapons program. Accepting its first shipment of waste in 1999, WIPP was touted as the ultimate high-tech, spare-no-expense model that proved radioactive waste disposal “can be done.”
But a series of disastrous events in February, 2014, led WIPP to stop accepting wastes—the sole function for which it was designed. Most significant was the explosion of a single barrel of highly radioactive waste materials (it was mistakenly packed with organic rather than clay-based kitty litter). About a dozen WIPP workers were exposed to potentially harmful radiation. The entire facility remains closed. In a phone interview, facility management told me it may again accept some wastes before the end of this year. But at least part of the cavernous underground labyrinth may never be reopened. The Los Angeles Times estimatedthe cost of this single accident at $2 billion…….Harvey Wasserman wrote SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH. He editsnukefree.org. You can find his GREEN POWER & WELLNESS SHOW at www.prn.fm ra ra http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/09/188947/how-nuclear-power-causes-global-warming
the BBC Science team’s involvement in a shocking display of bad science during the commemorations of the 2011 disaster in 2016 March this year. Even though there was outrage in the scientific community at the Fukushima video, it was some months before the BBC quietly took down the video.
the public that saw the biased Fukushima video were unaware of the wrong and dangerous information that was given.
There are many other articles out there that show the BBC defending Geraldine Thomas (BBC Expert) after the complaints came in and rebuffs for that on fissionline magazine and this was also added pressure that forced the BBC to take the Fukushima video down..
Sellafield – Contempt of Parliament – BBC News missed it. https://europeannewsweekly.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/sellafield-contempt-of-parliament-bbc-news-missed-it/by arclight2011part2 The nuclear industry supported press, in rebuffing the BBC Panorama teams claims of safety issues and lies to Parliament, we see some counters to the safety concerns but no response to the well documented evidence of the head of the Sellafield consortium lying to the Parliamentary committee and covering up the grave incident of plutonium release (and its cost) in November 2014.
Tony Price lies to Parliament (from Panorama Documentary)
The Spokesperson for Sellafield can be seen on the video acting a bit surprised at the questioning and revelations the Panorama reporter revealed. He just denied that any “spin” (ie lies) were said during the Parliamentary committee and that is the last word we have on this explosive revelation of criminality from the nuclear industry.
It is most surprising that the BBC News office did not pick this up as we see on the BBC web site they are fully aware of the issue of contempt of parliamentary procedure;
“….Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee, ….The Commons has the power to order anyone who has committed a contempt of Parliament to appear at the Bar of the House and to punish the offender…..”2008 BBC
Since that report was uncovered, the nuclear industry and their PR and government connections have swayed the public and eased their fears. The BBC and Science Media Centre (SMC UK) (Also called Sense About Science) was crucial to doing this and at the same time minimising the environmental and health impacts of the 2011 Fukushima disaster that had caused a huge drop in investor interest in nuclear projects.
So in the last 5 years the BBC has produced many supportive documentaries and educational materials favouring nuclear energy (Since the SMC UK started to receive large corporate funding) . In fact at the end of last year, the BBC science department was involved with promoting Sellafield and largely ignoring the many problems that existed there. Continue reading
Why Republicans support wind energy Tom Kiernan, Roberta Combs, Michele Combs, Desmoines Register September 20, 2016 Did you know that American wind turbines can now produce as much electricity as 17 typical nuclear power plants or 65 coal plants? That’s how much wind power has grown across the U.S.
Strong voter support for wind shouldn’t be surprising when you consider that by tripling in size over the last several years, wind now supports a record-high 88,000 jobs across all 50 states. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also recently reported that wind turbine technician is the fastest growing profession in the U.S. Wind farms also pay $222 million in land lease payments to family farmers, many of whom call wind power their new “drought-resistant cash crop.”
A cleaner energy economy built by growing wind energy benefits both our economy and our health.
Wind energy greatly reduces a variety of health-harming air pollutants, including smog-causing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Cutting these helps reduce asthma rates and other respiratory illnesses, creating $7.3 billion in avoided health costs last year alone.
Conventional wisdom says Democrats are typically consistent supporters of clean energy, while Republicans aren’t. That notion actually doesn’t match up with reality.
Sen. Chuck Grassley has shown visionary leadership in creating and advocating for the Production Tax Credit, a fundamental part of why we have a modern U.S. wind industry today. This performance-based tax incentive is a big reason why Iowa already generates nearly a third of its electricity using wind, with the 40 percent milestone looming in the near-future. It’s also why wind power’s technology has advanced enough to drop costs by two-thirds over just six years, saving American consumers billions of dollars.
It’s also not widely known that wind power supports well-paying jobs and invests in 75 percent of all Republican districts in the U.S.
Republican-represented districts host 86 percent of the total wind farm fleet in America. That means the majority of wind’s economic benefits — including jobs, billions of dollars in private investment, and added tax revenue for improving local infrastructure — go to rural communities with a strong presence of typically Republican voters……..http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2016/09/20/why-republicans-support-wind-energy/90743862/
One of the exhibiting artists is Castlemaine’s Jessie Boylan who contributed her portrait of whistleblower Avon Hudson in his “room of archives”, surrounded by objects, newspaper articles, documents, and photos related to Maralinga.
“It’s a portrait of a man who has always stood by his convictions,” Boylan said.
In 1960 Mr Hudson was a 23-year-old RAAF leading aircraftman who arrived at Maralinga after the British had stopped testing the A-bombs and started the “minor trials”, which resulted in the scattering of plutonium, uranium and beryllium across the desert.
“He wasn’t aware of the dangers of working on that site and then it wasn’t until later on that he realised all of his mates where dying in their 20s,” Boylan said.
This prompted his disclosure to the media of what he had witnessed, and ultimately providing testimony to the royal commission into British nuclear testing in Australia.
“His life has been dedicated to advocating for nuclear veterans as well as the Anangu people of Maralinga, and becoming an advocate and activist about nuclear issues in Australia,” Boylan said.
Nuclear issue still relevant today
Mr Mittman hoped the exhibition would bring this chapter of Australian history to the attention of the Australian public and remind them that the nuclear issue was still relevant today.
“The country to a large degree is still contaminated; the traditional owners, even though they have been handed back the land, cannot live there,” he said.
“I mean you can pass through there but for generations to come this country has been damaged.”
He said the Australian story was not an isolated story and referenced nuclear testing around the world including Nevada, French testing in the South Pacific, and Russian testing in Kazakhstan to name a few.
With the current discussion around whether South Australia should build a high-level nuclear waste dump he said “the past is very much on people’s minds”.
“The nuclear threat still hasn’t gone away with the end of the Cold War; in fact experts say the situation is more precarious now than it ever has been before,” Mr Mittman said.
Black Mist, Burnt Country opens on September 24 at the National Trust SH Ervin Gallery, NSW and will tour nationally. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-21/exhibition-to-mark-60th-anniversary-of-nuclear-testing/7865192
Business Investment in Renewable Energy hit by government cuts to Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
ARENA Cuts Impact Renewable Energy Businesses Business investment in Australia’s renewable energy sector will take a direct hit, with up to $5 billion of private funding at risk, as a result of the federal government’s decision to cut half a billion dollars from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Pro Bono, Wednesday, 21st September 2016 Ellie Cooper, Journalist Future Business Council executive director Tom Quinn said the government’s decision to cut funding to ARENA in the budget savings bill could have run-on effects on matched private-sector funding for renewable energy.
ARENA was saved from a worse fate, with the Coalition originally planning to strip $1.3 billion from the agency. Negotiations with the opposition secured $800 million in funding over the next five years.
But Quinn said the damage to the renewable energy sector would still be significant.
“The cuts to ARENA are shaking business confidence even further in the renewable energy space. This is a boom sector of this century, Australia’s got natural advantages in this space,” Quinn told Pro Bono Australia News.
“But the one thing holding back the industry is policy uncertainty created by hostile government actions.”
He said demand for renewable energy technology was “enormous”, with $329 billion invested globally in the sector last year.
But he said the role of ARENA was critical in launching renewable startups, growing viable businesses, and attracting local and international investment.
“If we’re talking about innovation in any new technology then early stage investment is critical, and that’s really where government comes in. Government has the ability to invest where the private sector can’t, and all too often that’s where Australia has let down its innovators and entrepreneurs,” he said.
“We haven’t got a good track record of backing early-stage innovation, and this is where ARENA was critical…….https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2016/09/arena-cuts-impact-renewable-energy-businesses/
In an era where short-term populist thinking prevails, South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill is pushing forward a project that is not only ridiculously long-term but has proven to be political dynamite.
So, Mr Weatherill would have to pull off something that has never been done anywhere else, a project even Finland thinks is too hard, one that could prove a major political headache, all to dump hazardous spent radioactive fuel Australia does not even use?
Why Jay Weatherill is in Finland to investigate Australia’s nuclear future, ABC News ANALYSIS By Europe correspondent James Glenday In case you missed it, South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill is in western Finland.
To investigate whether his state should build a high-level international nuclear waste dump to store radioactive uranium deep underground for at least 100,000 years.
The industry aficionados call it a “final repository”, but basically it is a big tomb-like system of tunnels built into solid bedrock where spent fuel rods are encased in steel, copper and clay.
Why should you care?
In an era where outrage is the cheapest commodity and short-term populist thinking prevails, the Premier is pushing forward a project that is not only ridiculously long-term but one that has proven elsewhere to be political dynamite.
A number of scientists believe a dump could be safely built and many economists think it could make South Australia $100 billion.
But it is also important to point out there is no pressing national need for this facility.
Australia does not produce high-level nuclear waste.
So, why is he in Finland?
Somewhat by chance, Finland is leading the world in the construction of a high-level waste facility 420 metres below Olkiluoto Island on the country’s west coast.
The company building it, Posiva, has been working on the idea since the 1970s, but quite reasonably assumed bigger nations like the United States, Britain, France, Sweden or Germany would come up with a solution they could copy.
But community opposition and controversy has killed, crippled or delayed plans for several radioactive dumps.
So, despite a couple of cost blow-outs, Finland has found itself at the front of the line.
And why do the Finns love the idea?
On a national level, opinion is actually mixed.
But around the “final repository”, the tax cuts, welfare increases, community facilities and jobs the nuclear industry has funded got the dump over the line.
Locals near Olkiluoto Island said, because they have benefited from nuclear energy, they also have a responsibility to safely manage the waste.
Currently, it is in a series of pools.
So, why not build an international dump then?
Ah, here is where we hit Finland’s “red line”.
According to Posiva executives, it would be “politically impossible”.
“Finland doesn’t want to become the waste dump of the world,” one said.
It is also against federal law.
Is it not also against Australian law?
Yes, it is.
But putting the politics aside, Posiva thinks it could help South Australia design and construct a high-level facility within 15 to 20 years.
Unsurprisingly, they are keen to try to sell their success to the world…………
OK. Is Jay Weatherill really likely to push on with this project?
He is likely to keep making positive noises, consulting and talking about how the waste facility discussion “must be led by the community”.
But the Labor Premier knows the biggest political threat to its development comes from his own side of politics…….
To realistically get a dump built in Australia, it will require the enthusiastic backing of a local community, industry, the South Australian Government and the Commonwealth for a period of at least 20 years, probably longer.
It is worth remembering proposals for many previous nuclear projects have proved controversial in Australia.
Also, you would have to convince a majority of people it is completely safe.
So, Mr Weatherill would have to pull off something that has never been done anywhere else, a project even Finland thinks is too hard, one that could prove a major political headache, all to dump hazardous spent radioactive fuel Australia does not even use? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-20/why-jay-weatherill-is-in-finland-to-investigate-nuclear-future/7859812