Comment on the specific recommendations in the Royal Commission's Report

Your comments will help us to understand your initial thoughts and concerns and will support the development of a broader conversation with the community.

Comments closed

Jeff Cownie

16 May 2016

i believe as do many others that it is the right time to move away from the idea of any project that includes the generation of nuclear power. We need to take responsibility for the future we leave to our children. Why not move towards renewable energy.We have the sun, the wind the sea and geothermal energy waiting to be exploited. Create employment and wealth without compromising the environment and our health.
Invest in the development of storage batteries, don't waste precious time and resources on nuclear or fossil energy sources.
As for a safe place to keep spent radioactive material maralinga is the obvious choice. We have already destroyed that place.

Ivi Grupp > Jeff Cownie

24 May 2016


You clearly haven't done the Math.

Too little energy can be stored in Storage Batteries.

Nuclear offers Millions of Times MORE Energy
per unit Fuel than what we depend on today.

We don't have & can't afford the Land, Roads
or other resources (even it we buy fr China!)
needed to raise both the Wind Generators &
the PC Solar Panels we'd need to power SA.


+ "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" Dave MacKay (rip)

( Free in PDF at: "

Ivi Grupp > Jeff Cownie

24 May 2016


In the Tentative FIndings, RC said
we'd be ready to build a Reactor,
by ~ 2030.

Our dim Commission has had PUSHBACK
from the powers that be (the small group
of Investors, who we heard about, eg, on
such Forums, before Submissions were
called for).

Who will explain the Change of Heart
(& Recommendation)?

Darren Jakobsson

15 May 2016

Clean, Green Renewable Energy

Humanity should know by now that we have to work with the planet, to not use any nuclear or fossil fuels for our energy consumption which are so detrimental to our climate, our planet and more importantly our civilization.
So why think of spending billions of dollars on research, technology and new infrastructure for a nuclear industry when it is so dangerous and harmful to our society and the environment. Instead, use those billions to open up the Clean, Green Renewable Energy markets.
Use Geothermal energy for base load power and increase the Solar and Wind energy markets. Develop Biofuels for the transport industry: Cellulose, Corn, Soy, Algal Oil, Sugar Cane, Camelina and Jatropha, Rapeseed - canola oil and Methane.
Since the 1980’s the majority of Australians have fought against having any nuclear industry in Australia and the answer for creating more revenue and jobs for South Australia is to generate the Clean, Green Renewable Energy markets which emit substantially low carbon emissions and are safe for our community and the bionetwork of our region.
In regards to the COP 21 Agreement made in Paris, France in December 2015 which has been ratified 22/04/2016 by every nation in the world bar two, Australia should be ceasing all mining as we know it.
Jay Weatherill’s venture of wanting to make Adelaide a carbon-neutral city by 2025 offering the Low Carbon Entrepreneur’s Prize of $250,000 in seed funding for the development of ideas spanning, energy, transport, waste and liveability is a great way forward. To have Adelaide be a world leader in renewables and clean technology, aimed at cutting green-house gas emissions and to generate new green businesses in Adelaide I think we should exploit to the highest degree but when the SA Government issues a Royal Commission for a nuclear fuel industry in SA it seems very contradictory.
It has been said the nuclear industry has a popular vote, so let there be a State Vote, a Constitutional Referendum to let the people of South Australia have their say and vote on the nuclear issue.
The correct way forward to keep SA’s reputation as a clean, safe state is to invest in and be the forerunners and global market leaders in the Clean, Green Renewable Energy markets which will create more revenue and jobs for our people now and for future generations to come.
The people of SA should come first so don’t condemn SA’s or Australia’s future generations and the environment to toxic waste for such a short term financial gain.
Don’t damage Australia’s clean reputation (clean being on so many different levels) as one of the world’s great countries, don’t contaminate it, just open up the Clean, Green Renewable Energy markets which the Australian people want.

Darren Jakobsson
Kingston Park

Ivi Grupp > Darren Jakobsson

24 May 2016


The Earth uses Nuclear Energy to heat itself,
far below the surface. Thorium is mentioned
in this connection.

(Of course, the Sun uses Fusion, which
so far seems like a boondoggle to try
to duplicate on Earth, IMO.)

But Liquid Fuel, Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs)
HAVE BEEN PROVEN Safe & Reliable, &
we can exect MSRs by ~2020, by all indications.

To view Kirk Sorensen's 10-min. intro talk
(given in Calgary, Canada), search
for his surname.

For lots more detail, cf: app "Thorium" remix
which enables access to 20+ documentaries
on the topic.

Steve Walker

14 May 2016

No where in the royal commissions report do they say how they intend to deal with and stop corruption.. the single biggest problem with the nuclear industry.. and if you want or need facts I will supply as many as you need to realise it is the biggest problem. you only have to look at the Tepco company and all it's shady history. A hard issue regarding the companies that you will be dealing with is exactly what are you getting ( in the box) what quality controls would be in place to verify (what is in the box).

Ivi Grupp > Steve Walker

24 May 2016


One of the BEST WAYS to keep Corruption
from leaving a Nuclear Project at risk -
at least in the case of Nuclear Reactors
(which RC could not recommend, in the end)

Liquid Fuel, Molten Salt Reactors lend them-
selves to "Walk-Away Safety" & would seem
(to me, et al.) to be the Safest Reactors soon
to be on the Planet. :-)

(Lots of links are in this forum to proven MSR info.)

Ivi Grupp > Steve Walker

24 May 2016

Having said the above,
any large Energy Project
has its share of Corruption.

Heather Burton > Steve Walker

13 Jun 2016

'any large energy project has its share of corruption' misses the point. Corruption in wind energy production doesn't risk irradiating a population (unless the corruption includes kickbacks from nuclear projects)

Tony Carlisle

12 May 2016

First, some spent nuclear waste takes several hundred years to decay to relatively safe levels. We have no idea of the geo-stability of the ground over this time frame which creates some risk for later Australians. Secondly, a popular new concept for new nuclear power stations is to use a combination of thorium and plutonium for the fuel source. If these power stations are built in various countries, plutonium will be sought after and the price of disposing will drastically drop. Considering that it will cost us enormously to setup a disposal facility, we could also be left with a $ shortfall.

Ivi Grupp > Tony Carlisle

24 May 2016

1. WAMSR (from MIT-based TransAtomic Power)
will use Physics (that you can find in a book, eg,
R. Hargraves' book:

+ "Thorium - Energy Cheaper than Coal")

to transform waste from "spent" Fuel Rods
into material with a Maximum Half-Life
(which determines the min. storage period
it needs, for our safety) of just ~300 years.

2. Correct me, f I'm wrong (ie, by posting a URL
link to your source(s)), but...

people who are serious about Liquid Fuel Nuclear
(ie, Molten Salt Reactors) do NOT embrace any-
thing like the Thorium & Plutonium combination
you mentioned.

Actually, there are 2 Fuel Options for
Liquid Fuel reactors:

1. Uranium (cf Terrestrial Energy Inc., in CA)

2. Thorium (cf FLiBe Energy in USA)

It's NOT the choice of Fuel (U vs Th)
that makes the big difference...

It's the choice of State of the Fuel
(SOLID Fuel Rods vs Liquid FUEL).

If you choose a Liquid Fuel MSR,
your waste output is mush LESS,
and it needs a much SHORTER
storage period: ~300 years.

IF you choose a SOLID Fuel Rod based reactor,
the 100,000's of yearsof storage is needed.

Again, I invite you to Correct Me, if I'm wrong,
ie by giving us a URL link to your Source(s). ;-)

aaron barrett

11 May 2016

put it in maralinga as a power station. after atomic testing killing aboriginal communities it is a baron wasteland. nothing grows there now. hydro water plant near darwin and ceduna sucking and filtering water into pipelines, then over various lengths pumping and airation systems to the maralinga site. then same back to hydro plants. this would increase employment and not damage current ecosystems. why damage or distroy any other aboriginal land?

James Stewart

10 May 2016

The report's most important immediate recommendation was the third next step: "establish a dedicated agency, overseen by an advisory board, to undertake community engagement to assess whether there is social consent to proceed". If enough people join this group it can lead that process, even nominating people for the advisory board.

James Stewart > James Stewart

10 May 2016

Thanks Kelly, that's why I made the comment. The problem is we were referred to 'yourSay' by the government but this needs to be promoted more widely by the government. I've not noticed if this has been done. It it was, why are we seeing so few participants? Surely such voluntary participation is what the premier wants. Please follow up.

Jon Odlum

10 May 2016

Build the storage facility!!!

James Brown

09 May 2016

The quality of the final report is very poor and is not fit for purpose for engaging the broader public on developing a safe and economic nuclear power programme. The report does not reflect the long-term issues raised by international bodies such as the IAEA or provide realistic expectations in terms of the long-term challenges of developing a broader nuclear industry. I suggest that the Australian Government engage the IAEA and NEA for a more objective report on the process and requirements for developing a broader nuclear industry. The report as it currently stands is not consistent in its assumptions or conclusions with reports from other nuclear agencies and regulators. For example the UK DECC waste price has been determined with 95% confidence to be below the waste price considered in the Royal commission. Furthermore the IAEA estimates the backend of the nuclear fuel cycle to average $2.33/MWh while the Royal commission has values up to US$36/MWh. These are just two examples of serious discrepancies that anyone even vaguely familiar with nuclear economics should have immediately picked up. There are many other examples of assumptions (such as decomissioning and capital costs) that are clearly unrealistic either due to either poor judgment or a failure to understand the nuclear specific aspects of the economic modelling.

The authors of the Royal commission reports clearly went from a state of complete ignorance in the first poorly written scoping report to a state of overconfidence in the final report. They go as far as stating that others haven't considered the wider system costs when they were clearly documented in their submissions. To conclude the emphasis in the report on making a quick buck is a disservice to everyone as all it does is raise expectations to unrealistic levels that can never be met. The report should instead have made climate change the focus and then provide a realistic timeframe for Australia to slowly move into a domestic nuclear power and fuel cycle capability starting with a very realistic uranium conversion facility in the near term.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Sam > James Brown

10 May 2016

Hi James, thanks for your contribution. The economics and issues like climate change are important for the community to consider further.

James Brown > James Brown

11 May 2016

I would like to inform the authors of the final nuclear Royal commission report that reference 174 on page 64 (and page 69) incorrectly states that my submission fails to take account of system costs. However pages 10 to 12 of my issues paper 3 submission consider this issue in great detail. In fact my submission provides greater depth, more quantitative data and more references to expert reports on this specific issue by the IAEA than the is considered by the Royal Commission. This error significantly misrepresents my submission (and my long standing position documented in all my peer-reviewed journal papers) and should be rectified immediately. If you are not able to arrange for this error to be rectified please advise how errors in the final report can be addressed. Kind regards
James Brown

James Brown > James Brown

13 May 2016

If this forum is to achieve its objective of developing trust and a social licence for nuclear it will need to respond to legitimate questions in a timely and transparent manner. I'm still waiting for a response and a correction to be made to the final report.

Tim Bickmore > James Brown

16 May 2016

"If you are not able to arrange for this error to be rectified please advise how errors in the final report can be addressed." Very good request: & one to which all who have found inaccurate or misleading content within the report want addressed. Presenting such a flawed document as 'legitimate evidence' within the deliberative poll can only generate a questionable outcome & not finalise the matter..

James Brown > James Brown

16 May 2016

Thanks, good comments. i
If anyone else agrees with these comments please also leave a message. After all, if the issues we raise are not addressed then the "your say" website will not be able to achieve its desired outcome.

steven remnant > James Brown

19 May 2016

To be fair the industry is not a liquid market, pricing is extremely volatile with wide "theoretical" spreads. but if we have a comparative advantage commercial viability is plausible, so we should be focusing on fixed and variable cost. at this stage I'm happy we are even having a discussion maybe in a decade we can scrutinize the cost benefit analysis.

Evelyn Gordon > James Brown

24 May 2016

didn't buy a house and raise my children to have a nuclear waste sight on our backdoors .I think the government were to quick to sell off to many assets that's why we are in the shit this is not safe you want jobs put money towards new inventions instead of letting them overseas put money in our great land and help our farmers to make our country more productive stop giving retiring member of parliament. Fat pensions get in the real world and listen to the people we don't want this in our country I want my grandchildren and family to live in a safe country .

Sam Powrie > James Brown

08 Jul 2016

I must say that after coming back to this discussion a few weeks after leaving my initial comment I am left with some despair about the extent to which participants actually understand what is being put to them! It seems that around 70-80% of these 8 or more pages of comments are focussed in nuclear power generation and assumptions that this may be a recommendation of the report and something that the Citizen's Juries are considering. This is completely incorrect! Whatever its failings, the report DOES NOT recommend a nuclear power generation industry in any shape or form for SA! Nada, not at all, nyet! What it does recommend is that development of a low-intermediate storage facility operating as a commercial enterprise BE FURTHER INVESTIGATED. That's basically it! Nor are the citizen's juries even being asked to rule on this recommendation or to make any sort of decision thereto. As I understand it they are just being asked to make recommendations to government as to how to best proceed in establishing what degree or 'social consent' there might be - in short, what questions should be asked of the community. I have to ask 'where are the moderators'? Why are they not better guiding these discussions and why aren't they doing their job in helping participants to focus on the real questions - those concerning establishment of a low-intermediate level storage facility? It's all starting to read like a bad day on Adelaide Now!