Reading about nuclear waste repositories around the world (eg Yucca Mountain), I stumbled on a 2005 proposal to have Australia store the entire planet's nuclear waste. At a glance, this actually looks like a great idea, since it seems to have the best physical and social conditions for long-term waste storage. It does look better than Yucca, and Yucca seems better than, say, the sites in Europe. The rest of the world would pay it to store the waste, so Australia would probably come out ahead.
As with the US nuclear storage issue, local politics (read: NIMBYism) appears to be the crucial barrier. However, the plan did receive some support Down Under. Perhaps we could help out with some international political nudging?
A strong case for Australia is made by Australian nuclear physicist Geoff Hudson in this interview. Some highlights:
The most likely natural causes of release would be earthquakes, floods and tsunamis, water corrosion, and large meteorite impacts.
This means that the repository site should be:
One. The site should be well away from any fault line...
Two. The site should be dry...
Three. The site should be well away from the sea. Preferably 100 kilometres inland.
Japan, New Zealand, and California are out, among other places.
The human risk to a repository of radioactive waste is more difficult to manage. One clear risk is the use of the waste by terrorists. Their objective would be to make a dirty bomb: conventional explosives mixed with radioactive waste. If this achieved the same effect as Chernobyl, but in London, New York or Paris, the consequences would be catastrophic. Imagine if the recent bombs in London had been radioactive. Mass evacuation, transport shutdown, businesses stopped. The effects would dominate the city and be felt as far away as Australia. In fact, this is the main threat which nuclear waste poses to Australians. Not to health or the environment, but to our economy.
This means that the repository site should be:
Four. The site should be very sparsely inhabited...
Five. The site should be on an island...
Six. The country governing the site must maintain the safety systems at the repository. It should have a stable government, preferably one with no history of civil war. The people in the country should be well educated and technologically advanced enough to know the risks of nuclear radiation, so that the protection of the site is preserved over changes in government.
OK, #5 is a bit strange, since Australia is officially a continent, not an island, but Dr. Hudson's point was that most major targets are a boat ride away, which may impede efforts to transport stolen waste.
Either way, I find this argument very interesting that the main threat from nuclear waste, once it's stored somewhere geologically safe, is the local safety threat and global economic threat from a dirty bomb. Thus, Australia may actually be making itself safer by storing the rest of the world's nuclear waste.
So...
Is there a place on earth which satisfies these six criteria?
The United States fails on three counts. The Yucca Mountain site, the intended US waste repository, is only 145 kilometres from Las Vegas and has three fault lines below it and volcanos nearby.
Japan, another heavy user of nuclear power, is also out. The whole country is on the geologically active Pacific Rim.
Europe has very few places where the population density is low, and equally fewer which are dry.
There are places in Africa which have few people and which are dry, but the continent is famous for civil unrest.
To my mind, the clear winner in this contest is Australia.
In my mind, I agree. I've also heard Russia as a site, but Australia is more socially stable. After all, Russia was host to the world's only fatal nuclear power accident- Chernobyl.
But, as should surprise no one, the scheme does not have much popularity in Australia, although it does have some- former prime minister Bob Hawke. From that article:
Greenpeace says Mr Hawke's proposal is disappointing and the Total Environment Centre says it is weird.
The centre's Jeff Angel says it does not address problems of long-term radiation risks and transporting the deadly substance.
He also says it would make Australia more of a terrorist target.
"These are the sort of serious environmental concerns you can't just dismiss through some glib suggestion that Australia become the world's nuclear waste repository," he said.
"It's a weird idea, we don't need to debate it because it's ridiculous and we should really get on with the job of making Australia clean and green and not turning our eyes backward all the time."
Sadly, this seems to be a case of "environmentalists" thinking too small ("making Australia clean and green" as opposed to doing so for the whole planet) and not trusting the scientists to make the best decisions. Contrary to Mr. Angel's suggestions, long-term radiation risks are not only being considered but are a main consideration here. Dr. Hudson did not discuss transportation, but this strikes me as a one-time, solvable problem. From my understanding of Yucca, the transportation would occur in a heavily shielded, heavily guarded convoy. I could be wrong, but I'd be quite surprised if our engineers couldn't properly shield the transport containers or if our militaries couldn't properly protect them. But if transportation is in fact a major problem here, this factor should be debated on its technical merits, not dismissed out of hand. Finally, while Australia would become more of a terrorist target, the world collectively would become less of a terrorist target, and Australia's exposure (including economic) to terrorism may actually decrease. (See the dirty bomb discussion above.) Bottom line, from what I see here, this would be very forward-looking of Australia, precisely the opposite of Mr. Angel's suggestion.
For another glimpse into Australia nuclear waste local politics see this.
I'm firmly opposed to the status quo where these decisions are dominated by local interests. "Thinking globally" is very important here. I would gladly welcome nuclear waste in my neighborhood if that was the best thing for the planet. Stakes are reasonably high here and we collectively get the best result by making the best planet-wide decisions we can instead of this local bickering. It's what game theory calls a collective action problem, and this locally-dominated status quo has us losing. (Ditto for other planet-wide concerns like climate change.)
If this really is the best solution- and the argument for it seems quite strong- then we may be able to help by putting it on the US agenda. We do have fairly good relations with Australia, and perhaps we can give them a helpful nudge in the right direction.
What do yinz think of this?