Sign warning of radioactive nuclear waste (Image: EPA/Christophe Karaba, Private Media)

Dr Geoff Bower writes: David Hardaker’s article “AUKUS nuclear dump deal decades in the making by players with prescience” on the lack of transparency of the AUKUS agreement(s) is well presented and profoundly worrying. To conflate the Lucas Heights storage facility with what would be required for us to store waste from reactors using weapons-grade uranium is insane, immoral and empty-headed. But this makes perfect sense if it was part of Scott Morrison’s secret arrangements with the US military-industrial complex and our old friends from the British empire.

Working with advice from multinational accounting firms and the US Navy admirals in our midst, it would have been logical and predictable. The laws of physics don’t apply in their end-of-days world, I guess.

These Attack-class submarines are really to defend our shipping lines now, are they? China will tremble in its boots at our sabre-rattling I’m sure, as Paul Keating so wryly observed. Maybe in their fevered political imaginations the spent fuel rods from the old Virginia-class subs (that we probably won’t get) will be able to be refashioned into medical radioisotopes and we will become an economic renewable superpower. 

Bob Hawkins writes: I was involved, with Access Economics, in the economic modelling of the possible net benefits of the Pangea waste storage project. It seems to me that Hardaker’s analysis glosses over three issues.

First, the provision of long-term storage of high-level waste is an extremely scarce resource. If Australia secured a near monopoly of its supply, it would be able to charge monopoly prices for access to it. If the revenue projections of the Pangea project were to be believed, there was a huge long-term revenue stream here. This amounted to an eye-watering economic return on the initial and ongoing outlays.

Second, from a global perspective, the alternative locations for long-term secure storage had a substantially higher risk of political failure. When Pangea was mooted, the main alternatives appeared to be in Argentina or South Africa, neither of which offered long-term political stability. Europe was too crowded and offered only limited areas with suitable geological stability. From a global perspective, Australia probably offered the least-worst long-term solution. The same may apply in the AUKUS context. If we were to invest in a facility to store high-level nuclear waste, we should probably accept waste from sources other than AUKUS.

Third, while I haven’t followed things closely, it seemed to me that the location proposed by Pangea was subsequently shown to be unsuitable geologically because of the occurrence of (undisclosed) artesian aquifers. This points to the need for careful scrutiny of the scientific underpinnings, as well as the socioeconomic analysis.

As with climate change, nuclear waste facilities operate over a timeframe that rivals the 60,000 years of Aboriginal stewardship of this continent. While we have so far shown ourselves as a society to be utterly inept in making decisions with so long a perspective, it seems to me to be a case that may justify overriding concerns of Traditional Owners and left-leaning politicians. However, it does not justify the current government’s seeming instinct to sweep difficult issues under the carpet.

Dr Eileen Whitehead writes: I was appalled by the fact that the Labor Party continued with the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines at a cost of $368 billion (at least) and then the small print of the deal was that we were then expected to become a dump for US and UK nuclear waste.

Over my dead body might seem rather glib, but nothing could be closer to the truth.

Christine Hunter writes: Is it or is it not a democratic right to know exactly what an elected government would like to do before it does it? Otherwise please advise the population Australia is no longer a democracy. 

Ian Helyar writes: Any honest estimation of cost can never be provided (“AUKUS’ nuclear waste dump is the secret no-one talks about. So what’ll it cost?”). Our government couldn’t even guess over the timeline of storage what the cost will be. To even ask the question on the right to know the cost is hilarious. 

Michele Madigan writes: The government should be forced to disclose the full cost of a nuclear waste dump — but will it know it?

While watching the excellent John Farnham documentary Finding the Voice the other night I was again struck by how people in former times were prepared to march and protest against the dangers of nuclear power. And now that times are as dangerous/more dangerous, there is not the same level of concern — at least not yet.

Stephen Dunn writes: Latest technology non-nuclear-powered submarines are what’s needed to defend Australia. And they are available in greater numbers at probably 10% of the cost of AUKUS, with no nuclear waste issues. Simple really. Let’s do a Dan Andrews and cancel Morrison’s commitment.