Nuclear power stations produce high-level radioactive waste. It is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years — and so far, the world has failed to deliver a safe, permanent storage method.
For decades, Australia has sold uranium – but said no to nuclear reactors. That’s set to change, whether in nuclear submarines or even in plans for power plants.
Spent nuclear fuel remains dangerous for so long that languages can disappear and humanity’s very existence cannot be guaranteed. So how do we communicate information about repositories into the future?
Now that plans for a national radioactive waste management facility near Kimba in South Australia have been abandoned, what next? Let’s learn from our mistakes.
A new process to quickly remove radioactive chemicals from water and other liquids and trap them in a clay-like substance could make nuclear waste management much easier.
Radioactive waste from nuclear medicine facilities will be trucked to and buried near the South Australian town of Kimba. But this decision still faces a range of hurdles.
The submarine announcement is sure to trigger a new round of debate on whether nuclear energy is right for Australia. But let’s be clear: the technology makes no sense for Australia.
Nuclear energy generates 75% of France’s electricity, and ongoing troubles at the new Flamanville EPR reactor have raised crucial questions about its future in the country’s electricity mix.
At the end of the day, the problem is that no-one on Earth wants nuclear waste stored near them, and it’s not safe or cost-effective to blast it into space.