I’m looking into this time format but so far can’t find how to change it – will ask someone

Graeme,
I agree that the public needs to be confident of a strategy for what I call “used nuclear fuel” – not waste.
I think however the “absolutely no traction” phrase is stretching it a bit. Nuclear energy currently has a favourable following which I think is north of 40% of the population and such a strategy has not been required to achieve this.

The objections to nuclear energy as a means of limiting emissions which comes from the Greens and their fellow travellers will continue regardless of resolving every technical issue they throw at it. For them, climate change is an opportunity to “get square” with capitalism. Their objection to nuclear energy stems from its effectiveness as a means of reducing emissions.
What these objectors really want is a system that puts the brakes on the economy and renewables achieves this agenda in spades.
Regarding the points you think need to be addressed:
Estimated half life is a complex concept given that the long lived radio-isotopes are alpha emitters. This radiation can’t pass through thin membranes and so placing it in containers prevents any contact with people. Of real concern from a public point of view are actually the short lived isotopes coming from fission products. These are gamma and beta emitters and their potential for impact upon people wouldn’t last more than 300 years or so. These are difficult concepts for the public to understand.
I think that Australia could base a lot of our strategy on the successful construction by Finland of the Onklo deep geological repository. This would give confidence to the silent majority.
I also think we could follow the lead set by Canada who would have high credibility with the Australian public.

I also think that we would look to use the first pass fuel from light water reactors as the fuel in fast spectrum reactors – this avoids the need to store the long lived transuranics and is the route that France, China and likely Japan are following. I think the USA will also eventually go down this route. We would still need underground storage of fission products and the real waste from the reprocessing industry.
This strategy will however require a well informed public to get their collective heads around the a complex issue – or develop a real trust in the scientists that are informing the.

Thank you for your engagement with this topic. Please keep the issues coming.

The matter of financing the Nuclear Solution is likely to crop up unfortunately : the Private Sector would likely object to it being very risky.

In the words of the late UK Prof David Mackay , (” Sustainable Energy Without Hot Air ” ) , the Nuclear Solution for low emissions proposed by NFC “Adds Up ” (unlike the NSW Govt Proposal, based largely on Wind, Water, Solar }.

Peter
Regarding our chief scientist. He is in fact a supporter of nuclear energy but his role is compromised by his political masters
The Institution of Engineers has a nuclear group but it comes into conflict with the sustainability group which is ideological. Unfortunately the Institution of Engineers has a poor track record on leadership which is why I left them as a member.

Yes it would and in fact any direct communications to the office of the minister would help. Even small groups of 3 or 4 like minded people help.