SA - Nuclear Future

[thecityguy]

People should be jumping at this opportunity! Just what this state needs. Can't wait to hear the dumb arguments against this tho! I read a comment the other day of someone suggesting that nuclear waste stored in whoop whoop will somehow effect her health, and the amazing produce from the barrosa valley


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is a great opportunity. IF the entire cycle is included in building up this industry and it's not just a nuclear waste dump.
And I mean including nuclear power.
We have a large chunk of the world's uranium sitting in our outback.

A nuclear waste dump would be deep underground.
If you think that it's therefore safe think again.

There's things to consider seriously, such as underground water aquifers.

Do you know towns like Coober Pedy actually get their water from such underground fresh water supplies? The water is cleaner then the shut that's pumped through taps in Adelaide.

Even If an underground water source Isn't being used by anyone, why should it be put at risk of being made radioactive?

Fresh water is not In abundance on this planet.
It is an extremely important and vital resource not only for our species survival but for the entire planet and it's ecosystems.


I'm not a greeny and I'm all for a complete nuclear industry from the mining to the waste storage.
But it should be done properly or not at all.

These decisions have implications for generations to come..hundreds of years after we've all kicked the bucket.

I'm assuming it will be done right. If it is unsafe then it shouldn't go ahead.

My issue is with the people that don't pay attention to the facts and just hear the word "nuclear" and straight away think it's a bad thing.

And a nuclear power plant would be great to. If we have so much uranium it makes sense to make the most out of it. Take advantage of it and create as many new industries based around the stuff as we can. Providing that's it safe and the best thing for the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monotonehell]

And a nuclear power plant would be great to. If we have so much uranium it makes sense to make the most out of it. Take advantage of it and create as many new industries based around the stuff as we can. Providing that's it safe and the best thing for the state.

You would think that, because prima facie it seems to make sense. But when you consider that there are exactly zero nuclear power plants in history which have turned a profit without substantial government subsidies, and nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy generation ever... then you realise that it doesn't make economic sense at all.

(Please forgive the lack of references, I am posting from my phone)

[thecityguy]

I'm definitely not an expert on this subject

But I was under the impression that nuclear was a fantastic, efficient technology, and the only reason it wasn't used more was because the bad stigma attached to nuclear energy after events such as the Russian and Japanese meltdown


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goodsy]

I'm definitely not an expert on this subject

But I was under the impression that nuclear was a fantastic, efficient technology, and the only reason it wasn't used more was because the bad stigma attached to nuclear energy after events such as the Russian and Japanese meltdown


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it was cheap enough to be competitive then the bad stigma would be irrelevant

[Wayno]

Royal commission on the nuclear vision for SA is due 11am this morning. Download here.

Here's one of the many predictive news stories. From ABC News

South Australia's nuclear royal commission is set to release its tentative findings this morning, with experts from both sides of the debate predicting an outcome in favour of a nuclear dump.

Key points:
Royal commission received more than 250 submissions
Industry would provide economic opportunities, SA Premier says
Report expected to be in favour of a nuclear dump

The Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle received more than 250 submissions since forming in March.

Commissioner Kevin Scarce will this week discuss the findings at a series of public meetings across the state ahead of the final report's release in May.

The issue has long stirred emotions in South Australia, with former premier Mike Rann and former prime minister John Howard at odds over a nuclear waste dump at Woomera for six years before the proposal was ultimately scrapped in 2004.

Current Premier Jay Weatherill is more receptive to the idea and set up the royal commission, saying there were economic opportunities in the mining, enrichment, energy and storage phases of the fuel cycle.

Flinders University associate professor of politics Haydon Manning said the Premier was looking for political gains as the state struggled with unemployment.

"If you understand the mood of South Australia, there is a degree of desperation," Mr Manning said.

"The highest unemployment in the nation, a premier looking for a fifth term. Let's remember that, that's a hard ask.

"I think that's why he started this whole royal commission.

"I think the belief is that this will produce an opportunity to say, 'we actually know where the money's coming from if you in South Australia, you people, you voters, accept the risks involved but also look at the benefits that may flow'."

Friends of the Earth anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green said the contents of today's findings were a "foregone conclusion" accusing the commission of bias.

"We expect that [the findings] will be mostly interested in the idea of making money out of importing high-level nuclear waste," he said.

"There are other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle which will probably be knocked off, namely uranium enrichment and nuclear re-processing. They're economic non-starters, so that leaves waste importation and possibly nuclear power.

"The issue of nuclear power, there will be something for everyone. There will be some positive comments but also some qualifications and also a lot of meaningless comments."

Dr Green said one point he would be looking out for was whether the findings recommended repealing federal laws banning nuclear power in Australia.

Pro-nuclear climate scientist professor Tom Wigley said he believed nuclear energy should be part of Australia's future, but said whatever was recommended would take time.

"Even if the royal commission comes down and says Australia needs nuclear technology as part of the technology mix ... it's not going to happen overnight," he said.

"It might be five to 10 years before we can get around to building nuclear power stations, and Australia only has 20 million people. We don't need all that many nuclear power stations really."

One of the royal commission's expert advisors, Professor Ian Lowe, said he did not know what the findings would be, and would be awaiting their release at 11:00am.

"I'm not apprehensive because if the royal commission sticks to the facts and what's proven, I think they'll inevitably conclude there's not a strong case for South Australia getting heavily involved in the nuclear industry," he said.

[OlympusAnt]

Who is gonna fund the building of a NPP? The government certainly can't.

[monotonehell]

The tl;dr of the summary of the tentative initial conclusions of the commission...
* Uranium mining has a limited future but is not the most economically interesting proposition.
* Uranium processing in South Australia is a non-starter (the market is already oversupplied).
* Waste disposal is the next big thing.
* A nuclear power plant is not economically viable. But might be in the future.

Dr Green totally called it.

Just out of interest, here's a quantification of what has been asserted about nuclear costs in recent years...

npv.png (40.13 KiB) Viewed 11666 times

From the report "DGA Consulting – Quantitative viability analysis of electricity generation from nuclear Fuels" commissioned by the commission

I'm reading (alright I admit, skimming) the independent reports commissioned by the commission. One report's conclusions are funny due to irony. It concludes that a nuclear power plant in South Australia is only possibly economically viable if, "electricity prices increase dramatically as a result of strong climate action, such as 100% reduction in emissions relative to 2000 levels by 2040 to 2050."

So the only way we'd get a NPP is if the Greens got in.

[rev]

Who is gonna fund the building of a NPP? The government certainly can't.

The federal government certainly can, and it should be a federal government thing.

The problem isn't that they cant fund it, the problem is globalization.
Long ago the shift from state owned utilities to private owned utilities started. It's how the "system" works. You get helped on your way to being in debt over your head, they come in and say sell this sell that, they buy it at below what it's worth, and then run profits off your people.

Why would a private company that doesn't need a nuclear power plant, build a nuclear power plant? It's going to cost them many billions to build.
They are already fleecing us with the current electricity producing infrastructure they have, why spend billions on new infrastructure when they don't need it?

If our utilities were all still government owned, then the question wouldn't be if Australia will build a nuclear power plant, but when.

There's new technologies anyway, so it wouldn't necessarily be a nuclear power plant of the type built in other countries decades ago.

[monotonehell]

If our utilities were all still government owned, then the question wouldn't be if Australia will build a nuclear power plant, but when.

I thought you said you wouldn't vote for socialism?

[phenom]

We wont get free electricity, and they certainly wont abolish state taxes. Sadly South Australian's, or at least those voting on Adelaide Now, are falling for it hook line and sinker. In what parallel universe do people in this state live in exactly?

Totally agree.

It is disturbing to me how this is being presented to 'the people' in the context of rivers of gold paying for massive (State) tax cuts and huge development opportunities.

Not one 'high profile' person involved in this (including politicians who 'should' know better) has mentioned how the commonwealth funding model for the states is based on relative tax effort. Effectively, within three years of any 'river of gold' we would have our federal grants cut right back to equalise our lower 'tax effort'.

I get that many people think this is arcane but it kind of goes to the heart of the matter when the basis of this whole dump is that there will be huge economic benefits for the entire State rather than particular companies involved directly in running the dump.

It's 'odd' that there are so many 'modelling' papers on the commission website but none of them even mention this as an issue... better we have AdelaideNow proclaiming we'll be the new el dorado.

[monotonehell]

It is disturbing to me how this is being presented to 'the people' in the context of rivers of gold paying for massive (State) tax cuts and huge development opportunities.

Not one 'high profile' person involved in this (including politicians who 'should' know better) has mentioned how the commonwealth funding model for the states is based on relative tax effort. Effectively, within three years of any 'river of gold' we would have our federal grants cut right back to equalise our lower 'tax effort'.

I get that many people think this is arcane but it kind of goes to the heart of the matter when the basis of this whole dump is that there will be huge economic benefits for the entire State rather than particular companies involved directly in running the dump.

It's 'odd' that there are so many 'modelling' papers on the commission website but none of them even mention this as an issue... better we have AdelaideNow proclaiming we'll be the new el dorado.

This plus the only references in the report to the transportation issue are that it is possible. 'Trucks filled with radioactive waste driving through your neighbourhood soon' are a give away to those against a dump. No wonder they are keeping quiet on that point.

[Vee]

It is disturbing to me how this is being presented to 'the people' in the context of rivers of gold paying for massive (State) tax cuts and huge development opportunities.

Not one 'high profile' person involved in this (including politicians who 'should' know better) has mentioned how the commonwealth funding model for the states is based on relative tax effort. Effectively, within three years of any 'river of gold' we would have our federal grants cut right back to equalise our lower 'tax effort'.

I get that many people think this is arcane but it kind of goes to the heart of the matter when the basis of this whole dump is that there will be huge economic benefits for the entire State rather than particular companies involved directly in running the dump.

It's 'odd' that there are so many 'modelling' papers on the commission website but none of them even mention this as an issue... better we have AdelaideNow proclaiming we'll be the new el dorado.

This plus the only references in the report to the transportation issue are that it is possible. 'Trucks filled with radioactive waste driving through your neighbourhood soon' are a give away to those against a dump. No wonder they are keeping quiet on that point.

Agree, phenom.
"Rivers of gold" bribery to suck in the gullible. Get the nuclear waste dump and see the 'equalisation' / cut backs in other sources of Federal dollars kick in. A fistful of dollars is illusory. Who benefits? The dump 'landowner', a few locals and some trucking company.

And the cost to our emerging 'clean and green' state image - food, wine, renewables - would be immeasurable. Tourism, foodie culture, agriculture... and the blow to the state pysche / reputation as reality kicks in. And ultimately, the butt of jokes from the other states (for which we become the dumping ground for low and medium level nuclear waste). High level on the cards?

And agree, monotonehell re risks involved in transport and no mention (even visualization) of possible transport routes and risks.
How about a map with some potential routes along major highways and other roads through neighbourhoods and regional centres and communities?

Let's see how much support there is when nuclear waste from all parts of Australia, and returned from overseas, is being transported from all directions through SA to its ultimate destination.

[Vee]

InDaily article by Richard Blandy - cost-benefit analysis - no to 'high level' nuclear waste dump.
He will submit his response to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.

Nuclear waste dump confounds cost-benefit analysis (excerpts)

The proposal for a South Australian high level nuclear waste dump places too much risk on future generations, argues economist Richard Blandy.

The only aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle that received the Royal Commission’s support in its tentative findings was the storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel, entirely from overseas, obviously. The Royal Commission described such an integrated storage and disposal facility as “likely to deliver substantial economic benefits to the South Australian community”.

"High level waste"....

I believe that the Royal Commission has got this wrong and that South Australia should not use part of its land mass as a dump for highly radioactive used fuel from overseas nuclear reactors (called “high level waste”) which, in the Royal Commission’s own words, “requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”.

The reason why South Australia should not allow a nuclear dump within its borders goes to the heart of cost-benefit analysis involving many generations of people, literally tens of thousands of generations, in this case. Cost-benefit analysis works well when the costs are up front and the benefits accrue into the future. But it falls apart when the benefits are up front and the costs accrue into the future.

This is the case with the proposed high level nuclear waste dump. We are promised an up-front bonanza, after 30 years of construction of the facility, with a net present value of “more than $51 billion (at the intergenerational discount rate of 4 per cent)”.

It would generate $5 billion per year for the first 30 years of its operation, which is about the size of the farm sector, the retail sector, the education sector, the professional scientific and technical services sector and the public administration and safety sector. Effectively, we would add a substantial sector to our economy.

But not in employment terms: the dump would add only about 1500 full-time jobs during construction and 600 jobs once operations began, compared with 800,000 jobs presently in South Australia.

The capital intensity of the dump is very, very high.
The dump would require an investment estimated at about $27 billion, to be financed by a pre-commitment by contracted users of the dump rather than the State Government.

Risk:

But associated with the dump is a risk that lasts for many hundreds of thousands of years....

... Read Blandy's detailed cost-benefit argument via the InDaily link below.

Finally, Blandy asks...

But what happens if the benefits are up-front and there are costs that accrue into the future?
.... we are bequeathing a stream of costs to our successor generations. They will be poorer as a result, and will have reason to curse their forebears...

InDaily:
http://indaily.com.au/business/analysis ... efit-test/

[claybro]

Some interesting points raised re the infinitely long term commitment to this. The figures n the longevity of this stuff is frightening. One side of the argument not addressed though, is it "morally" correct for SA to export uranium, and then refuse to take back waste? The same argument does not apply to coal or gas exports for example, because the waste goes into the atmosphere and is impossible to "take back" but uranium is different. Also, if we then go down the morally correct path and refuse to export uranium, on the grounds we wont take the waste back are we then prepared to take the loss in export dollars for SA? Are we happy for other parts of the world to store waste from "our" uranium in less stable places and accept a risk to other populations? Would we be prepared to stop the uranium industry, agitate for others to do so, and have all electricity generated worldwide overnight change back to coal/gas/oil and the associated MASSIVE increase in cO2 output? Its all very well to take a high moral ground, but the world needs energy, more so into the future, and SA has masses of it. The original "money or the box". But what is in the box?

[rev]

If our utilities were all still government owned, then the question wouldn't be if Australia will build a nuclear power plant, but when.

I thought you said you wouldn't vote for socialism?

I think I said I wouldn't vote Greens

I'm not a lefty I'm not a righty.
Both sides have their merits and their downsides. Why can't there be a centrist party that takes the good from both and combines them into one policy platform?