Former prime minister Bob Hawke says Australia should become the world's nuclear waste dump. Jackie Sinnerton looks at the contentious issue 

NUCLEAR waste is literally piling up as the world bickers over where it should be stored. 

It's the ultimate debate. "Anywhere but my back yard" is the global catchcry. 

But time is running out. As evidence builds that mankind needs to act urgently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it hopes to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, nuclear power is hailed for its zero carbon impact - and as the only viable alternative to coal-fired power stations on a large scale. 

However, while nuclear power generation does not contribute to global warming, it does of course have a nasty waste product: toxic fuel rods that remain deadly for thousands of years. 

The lack of permanent, safe storage facilities for this nuclear waste has not prevented the production of nuclear power - and presently 250,000 tonnes of radioactive rods are housed at temporary containment facilities around the world. 

Last week former prime minister Bob Hawke once again raised the issue of Australia's suitability as the location for the world's nuclear dump. 

Speaking after the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, Mr Hawke said Australia had a responsibility to consider what role it could play. 

"Australia can make a significant difference to the safety of nuclear generation by agreeing to take waste from nuclear power stations," he said. "This would be an important contribution to safety and energy security. It would also become a strong source of national income for Australia that could be dedicated to our own environmental and water requirements. 

"The fact is that Australia has some of the geologically safest places in the world to act as a repository for nuclear waste."

Mr Hawke first floated the idea four years ago to the Howard government but today he insists it has gained further impetus and is the answer to securing Australia's financial future and limiting the damage from climate change. 

Certainly somebody needs to step forward. The United States this year pulled out of the discussion when President Barack Obama put the brakes on an $8 billion plan to set up a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. 

The site had been identified as the ideal location for such a facility back in the 1980s. But even the dynamic Mr Obama is reluctant to accept the challenge of such a potentially divisive political issue. 

In the past, the Australian spotlight has been cast on the Northern Territory and Western Australia. 

In 2005, the Federal Government announced three potential locations: Fishers Ridge (southeast of RAAF Base Tindal), Mt Everard (northwest of Alice Springs) and Harts Range (northeast of Alice Springs). 

But any discussion has met fierce opposition from state and territory governments, and it would be a brave federal administration that made the decision to impose a nuclear waste dump where it wasn't welcome - even if it could get the legislation through parliament. 

Supporters say there are strong ethical arguments for building such a dump in Australia: if we truly want to save the planet, and nuclear power is the answer, shouldn't we accept the responsibility of safeguarding the waste? 

Australia is stable geographically and politically, and if we are prepared to make billions from exporting the uranium that fuels nuclear generators, surely we can't turn a blind eye to the waste disposal dilemma? 

There's also the tempting consideration that Australia could secure untold riches for future generations as the world becomes nuclear-dependent. 

Australia's uranium reserves are the largest in the world, with 23 per cent of the total. In the five years to mid 2008, Australia exported more than 50,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate with a value of almost $3 billion. 

Just last month former anti-nuclear campaigner and now Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett approved the country's fourth uranium mine, to be built in South Australia's northeast. Queensland, with its vast reserves of coal, still has a ban on uranium mining. 

Brisbane scientist Zoran Ristovski, an associate professor at the School of Physical and Chemical Science at Queensland University of Technology, believes it won't be long before the world will be forced to change its reaction to the word 'nuclear'. 

"In the world of science you can never say never and this is a subject that has been fiery for many years," Dr Ristovski said. "I can fully understand that no one wants to have these plants close to them and that is where the problem lies. 

"While there are many arguments for the use of nuclear power, of course there are risks with the storage of toxic waste and that cannot be overlooked. 

"I believe it would be better for Australia to take small steps and not lunge into a plan to bring in the waste from around the world. A much safer option would be to produce our own nuclear power and deal with our own waste, expertly - lead the way. 

"This is much too sensitive an issue to be spurred on by making money. I don't care if it is billions. It needs to start small and be done properly. But then, finding the right site? Again that's the issue."

Many environmentalists are vehemently against nuclear power, regardless of its greenhouse gas benefits. The perils of radioactive waste, they say, are simply too great a threat to the planet. 

Toby Hutcheon, executive director of the Queensland Conservation Council, insists Australia needs to phase out uranium mining entirely. 

"While we continue to export, Australia will be put under pressure to do their part in the waste issue - we must remove that pressure and Australia must in the future have no links with the word 'nuclear'," he said. 

While Mr Hawke insists Australia is the 'clear winner' as the best choice for a nuclear waste dump site, Mr Hutcheon disagrees. 

"The Commonwealth Government has been looking for a site for 25 years and they cannot find one that has the support of any communities - not surprisingly," he said. 

"I am guessing that Hawke is a city dweller and the toxic materials would not be buried in the ground anywhere near him or his family. 

"The Northern Territory debate has been done to death. Sites that may have been considered viable decades ago may not be in the running today due to climate change - sites may now be subject to increased flooding. Not a good thing when nuclear waste is in the ground. 

"Australia already leads the world as a good clean country with a green image - why would we tarnish that international reputation? If these countries cannot find a permanent site on their own home ground, doesn't that say it all?"

According to Mr Hutcheon, the revenue from such a facility is irrelevant. 

The setting up of the storage site would cost billions of dollars, for starters. 

"Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of transporting the waste by sea safely. What about earthquake, tsunamis . . . and wouldn't it be an instant attraction for terrorists? It is too dangerous to entertain."

But does the Earth really have any choice but nuclear power? 

Dr Geoff Hudson, a nuclear physicist from Melbourne, put nuclear power into perspective when he said: "To produce 24,000 kilowatt hours of electricity - a typical household consumes that over two or three years - a coal-fired power station will output more than 14 tonnes of carbon dioxide gas, while a nuclear plant will output about 80g of used fuel rods to produce the same. 

"The 14 tonnes of carbon dioxide gas would occupy 7000 cubic metres, more than two Olympic swimming pools full, while the 80g of fuel rods will fill one heaped teaspoon."

But nuclear power still makes people nervous: mention the word Chernobyl and it sparks fear more than 20 years after it earned infamy. 

When the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine exploded in 1986, deadly radioactive fallout spread over thousands of kilometres. 

The accident was directly blamed for more than 50 fatalities, and linked to 4000 cancer deaths and an increase in birth abnormalities. 

While the Chernobyl plant was relatively primitive by modern standards, technology advancements have not eased public concerns, especially when accidents continue to occur. 

In Japan in 1999, an explosion at the Donen nuclear plant in Tokaimura killed two employees and exposed more than 600 residents nearby to radioactive fallout. 

Investigations revealed sloppy safety standards at the facility, including rusting barrels containing radioactive waste. 

One country that seems to have tackled the 'not in my back yard' issue head-on is Sweden. 

Officials recently announced Sweden would press ahead with the world's first permanent nuclear waste storage sites to house highly radioactive waste for more than 100,000 years. The project is not expected to be operational until 2024 but the public relations battle is already in full swing, with Swedes currently 80 per cent in favour of it going ahead. 

The plan is to bury the waste in tunnels drilled 500m underground, 200km north of Stockholm. 

Finland and France aim to have similar storage facilities in operation by 2030. 

The Swedes will store the nuclear waste in copper-coated canisters which will be welded shut and then mechanically deposited in the tunnel. 

A layer of bentonite clay is injected to fill the hole and when mixed with water, the clay swells to provide a watertight barrier and protect against earthquakes. 

Waste from Sweden's 10 reactors has been stored since 1985.