Community discussion: economics

When examining economics, the Citizens' Jury considered benefits, risks, employment and impacts on other industries in the state from the establishment of a nuclear waste storage and disposal facility. Tell us if these are also important for you, and why?

Comments closed

Harry Degenaar

13 Oct 2016

Noel Wauchope - FYI
Shikoku Electric Power Co. restarted the Ikata No. 3 reactor early August 2016, the only reactor burning the mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel. The reactor is the fifth to be switched back on since all of the nation’s atomic reactors were closed due to the March 2011 triple core meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. Have a look how France is handling its electricity generation. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

Noel Wauchope > Harry Degenaar

17 Oct 2016

Japan abandons Monju fast reactor: the slow death of a nuclear dream, Ecologist Dr Jim Green 6th October 2016 Is Japan's decision to abandon its Monju reactor the latest nail in the coffin of a dead technology? Or the final stake through its rotten heart?........ 'A demonstrably failed technology'

Allison MacFarlane, former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, recently made this sarcastic assessment of fast reactor technology:

"These turn out to be very expensive technologies to build. Many countries have tried over and over. What is truly impressive is that these many governments continue to fund a demonstrably failed technology."

While fast reactors face a bleak future, the rhetoric will persist......http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988203/japan_abandons_monju_fast_reactor_the_slow_death_of_a_nuclear_dream.html

Harry Degenaar > Harry Degenaar

17 Oct 2016

Noel Wauchope - Interesting to see how you dig-up some information to mislead participants in this discussion. The fact remains, Japan has restarted its nuclear electricity generation including the Ikata No. 3 MOX reactor. Furthermore, despite its apparent intention to close the Monju facility, the Japanese Cabinet appeared to have reaffirmed its commitment to a fast breeder program of some kind, essential if Japan's stockpile of some 50 tonnes of plutonium is to be disposed of. The successor to Monju is expected to be a larger demonstration plant that will be completed around 2025, built by the newly formed Mitsubishi FBR Systems company.

Currently nuclear reactor capacity is extending further; mainly in Asia, with a relatively large number of nuclear reactors 70 in total being under construction.

Nuclear power's PR problem is yet another way it's different for China. One of the reasons that country has been so successful in its nuclear development plan is that it has effectively ignored the prospect of public opposition. The urgency around climate change is increasingly overtaking and subsuming concerns about nuclear and is opening up the idea of nuclear being part of the solution. China will likely be the modular epicentre. Nurtured by a huge domestic deployment, Chinese factories could produce cheap sub-modules and parts for nuclear projects around the world, just as they now make the world’s solar panels.
China has also designed a reactor based on an Areva design the Hualong 1, for domestic builds and export. South Korea is ahead of China in nuclear exports; it is supplying four APR-1400 units for the Barakah plant in the United Arab Emirates, now half built. Russia is also building several plants in foreign countries.

These successes illuminate what’s gone wrong in the United States and Europe. The great model change-over to Generation III+ reactors with novel design features has gotten mired in delays and over-runs in Western countries that haven’t built new reactors for decades.

In an open letter to be published in the journal Conservation Biology, more than 65 biologists, including a former UK government chief scientist, support the call to build more nuclear power plants as a central part of a global strategy to protect wildlife and the environment.

Carmen Verne

11 Oct 2016

Carmen Verne>Noel Wauchope
You are one of the few sane people making any sense in this discussion. 🌏

Simon George

06 Oct 2016

Does the cost benefit look ahead hundreds of years considering maintenance of the facility? I'm less interested in the economic side and more interested in the people/environment. This could make money and I would still be hesitant. People. Environment.

Claire Catt > Simon George

07 Oct 2016

Some things you don't do for any money, ever. Burdening thousands of future generations with the most dangerous waste known to man, the money long gone spent by a Government long forgotten , that's one of those things.
Even if the (one only) economic modelling was right, which is highly questionable, it would still not be right. We just need to say NO until the Government gets it!

Steve Charles > Simon George

10 Oct 2016

Well said. The people of the UK are still paying for the electricity generated by the very first power station in the world - Caulder Hall, now called Sellafield. They will be paying for that power for the next 100,000 years, unless of course, they ship all that wast to SA where Weatherill will gleefully take it for a quick buck. Thanks Jay.

Noel Wauchope > Simon George

11 Oct 2016

The crazy part of Weatherill's scheme is that there will be no "quick buck". At least, not for the South Australian people, anyway. It will be decades before South Australia gets any revenue from foreign companies for waste burial. South Australia will eventually be stuck with the costs of permanent maintenance and security of the huge waste dump sites, and/or of any "stranded waste containers left above ground. Of course there's a possibility that Weatherill and his cronies might do well for themselves out of all this, in the very shot run. There could be some handy funds coming in for the 2018 election?

Greig Ebeling > Simon George

16 Oct 2016

Noel, I would recommend that before commenting you take the time to read the Royal Commission report and follow the debate. In fact, it is generally agreed, there will be no program unless there are signed commitments from customers to pay for the initial facilities, and the building of each phase of the project will proceed only as accrued funding from existing services is received. So there is a very low long-term risk of the project failing economically, and your claim that tehre will be short-term profits made is also incorrect.

Tony Glasson

29 Sep 2016

This is not a business opportunity, this is a possible disastrous mistake.
Would you accept payment to have this in your backyard ?
There is more to life than money.

Greig Ebeling > Tony Glasson

16 Oct 2016

I would have this in my backyard. I have the benefit of an engineering background, so I know how safe this is. However, I can understand that others may not understand the quality of the engineering that applies to this project, and so fear it.

Carmen Verne

29 Sep 2016

Reply to Harry Degenaar
If the US and Europe are reprocessing their nuclear waste as you say then we do not need to import any of their waste.

Harry Degenaar > Carmen Verne

29 Sep 2016

There is a requirement to increase the capacity to reprocess nuclear waste. So it's a business opportunity. Furthermore, it will provide the fuel for GEN IV PRISM reactors a much better option than wind and solar electricity generation. Just look at what happened yesterday in South Australia, and not so long when South Australia had a prolonged heatwave (during heatwaves there is no wind). During severe storms, wind turbines have to stop. Lookup on what happened in Tasmania not so long ago. Advanced nuclear power generation is a renewable energy source. Nuclear can be a lesser of the two evils destroying the planet oil and coal. Nuclear power has already prevented millions of air pollution-related deaths. Have a look (in real-time) showing how sad the electricity generation is in Australia by state. http://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/ We have to move on and fast if we are to save this planet. There is no plan B.

Noel Wauchope > Carmen Verne

11 Oct 2016

It was always the aim of the "new nukes" lobby to try out their new toys in South Australia. The PRISM and the various gimmicks touted by the Thor-Bores have very little credibility. But they do depend on having a source of plutonium and/or enriched uranium. Hence the need for a nuclear waste dump nearby.

Apart from these new gizmos being (a) non existent, (b) super expensive (c) decades away - too late to affect climate change, they also (D) leave highly toxic radioactive wastes. Those wastes might be smaller in volume, but are so highly toxic that they require an area of waste disposal of the same size as for the wastes of the "conventional" nuclear reactors. The Thor -Bores argue that their gimmick's wastes last only the MERE 300 YEARS. In fact, someof their radioactive "daughter" isotopes last very much longer than that. But even 300 years is hardly a short term problem, is it?

Carmen Verne > Carmen Verne

11 Oct 2016

Carmen Verne>Noel Wauchope
You are one of the few sane people making sense in this discussion.

Greig Ebeling > Carmen Verne

16 Oct 2016

Noel,

You say toys, gimmicks, gizmos? The technology you are referring to, though certainly new and not yet fully commercialised, has the technical potential to provide all of the worlds electricity for the next 5000 years, safely, securely and reliably, produce less CO2 per kWh than wind and solar, and produce only a tiny amount of waste that is easily buried in much smaller facilities, requiring for only a few centuries to decay to natural background level. Considering how long it is taking for the world to deploy renewables so that it supplies reliable 24/7 power, this new nuclear technology is exactly the breakthrough that is needed to resolve climate change.

The waste that Australia is potentially managing is a fuel for this style of reactor, so is extremely valuable. Australia can therefore be a major part of a program of works to resolve climate change. We can be a part of the solution.

Harry Degenaar

29 Sep 2016

I am all for having a high-level nuclear waste facility. South Australia has a unique combination of attributes bolstering the opportunity for disposing of high-level nuclear waste. It should not just be a storage facility, but also a reprocessing facility, the technology is already available for this. They could also supply the reprocessed fuel back to the nuclear electricity generating industry. Or even have their own PRISM Breeder Reactor. It's safe and environmentally responsible. A GIGANTIC $445 billion would be pumped into the state’s finances by creating such a lucrative high-level nuclear waste storage facility. Furthermore, it can create about 1500 full-time jobs, peaking at up to 5000 during a 25-year construction process and 600 full-time jobs once the plant is operational. Even better if they were to take on the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods. Something I have not been able to find from the Royal Commission findings. Gen IV, Nuclear Reactor's could use the nuclear waste as fuel from the Paducah enrichment facility stockpile, alone representing an energy resource equivalent to $100 trillion worth of electricity. The UK Government is now considering such a Breeder Reactor. The UK has a waste plutonium stockpile that contains enough fuel for Fast Reactors to run the country’s electricity grid for 500 years. Thus also at the same time dealing with the troublesome plutonium stockpile in Britain. Breeder Reactors consume recycled nuclear waste as fuel, and could support nonproliferation efforts by consuming material from former nuclear weapons, thus eliminating them as a threat.

Noel Wauchope > Harry Degenaar

11 Oct 2016

Fast breeder nuclear reactors are becoming well known as a failure. The latest news on them is the coming shutdown of Japan's MOX nuclear reactor, which has been in contention for over 20 years, and has been a crippling financial disaster.

Steven McColl > Harry Degenaar

13 Oct 2016

To: Harry Denegar - Constructive post, thank-you. Yes the Fast Breeder Reactor is one of the viable engineering options.
.
CC: Noel Wauchope: Thank-you for your comments also.

When I stumbled on the above I could not resist . .

Noel: Noel you must have searched the internet for days to find something to resent Mark Anderson's post on the 29 Sep 16 in the 'Safety section' regarding Marks contribution of the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)- so why did you not learn something from it?

Firstly: With due respect Noel your knowledge on Fast Breeder Reactors would fit on the head of a pin.

.

So what are your engineering solutions to establishing
- actinide feeds and the
- negative thermal coefficient?

.

NONE.

CDR McColl RPEQ CPEng.

Steven McColl > Harry Degenaar

13 Oct 2016

Secondly regarding economics:
-
At Dimitrovgrod, Russia's largest nuclear research centre AKME-Engineering set up as a joint venture between Russian state nuclear company Rosatom and Irkutskenergo Group aimed at commercializing the technology of the Lead-bismuth cooled fast-neutron reactors from their Alpha Class submarines.
.
And at Dimitrovgrod the SVBR-100 reactor cooled by heavy metal is one of the first electrical power sources to generate electricity – at lower cost per than coal, gas, hydro, solar or wind.
.

That's exactly right.
No matter how much money you throw at Solar and Wind transformed energy - they're both intermittent and diffuse.

.

Noel have you read the NFCRC report?
It's long i am working through it myself and holistically I take on board other rational information.
.

Also here is an extract from a quote in The Weekend Australian dated 8 to 9 Oct 16 under the heading:
'Consumers paying for green-power madness':
.

"Windmills where once used for grinding grain until more effective methods were adopted, now windmills are being used to grind down the taxpayer with ridiculous subsidies and skyrocketing electricity prices".

.

So Noel where are your financial solutions to put forward the generation of Base load electricity?
And your engineering for the disposal of fission products and transuranics please?

.

Why on earth do you think the Fast Neutron Reactor was originally designed for?

.

.

ASIDE:
You may like look up 'Betz constant' (Albert Betz born in 1885) regarding Windmills as this is a is a reminder to us all, there's no control over the magnitude of energy input into Windmills.
.
-And control over timing either, such as during recent high-speed wind event in South Australia when wind 'over-speeds' occur, when the blades furl to reduce form-drag. (Though as I understand it may not have been just windmill failure with other contributing failures also because rarely does a system-failure occur from only one input).

.
- Do you know what form-drag is?
.

- Also with windmills there are other constraints that we have no control over such as air-density variations as follows;
.

Air Density (rho) varies....

a) Air density (rho) varies with altitude, below approximately 6000m as follows;

.

rho =rho(0)exp(-0.29h/3048)

- where 'rho(o)' = 1.226 kg/m3 and 'h' is in meters.

.

b) The air density varies with temperature and pressure too;

rho = 3484.3 P/(T+273)

- Where 'P' is the atmospheric pressure in Pascals, and 'T' is the ambient temperature in degrees Celsius.

.

c) The air temperature defined for the standard atmosphere
15 degrees Celsius at 101.325kpa, varies as a linearly decreasing function of altitude as follows;

.

T = 15 -1.983(h/304.8)degrees C
.

d) Humid air is less dense than dry air.
.

Because a molecule of water (M ≈ 18u ) is less massive than either a molecule of nitrogen (M ≈ 28u) or a molecule of oxygen (M ≈ 32u). About 78% of the molecules in dry air are nitrogen (N2). Another 21% of the molecules in dry air are oxygen (O2).
.
.
The final 1% of dry air is a mixture of other gases.
Where M = molecular mass and u = atomic mass unit.

.

Thank you Harry and Noel.

CDR McColl RPEQ CPEng.

Rosanna Cappelluti

22 Sep 2016

SA is better than just being a nuclear high level waste repository - we have a better future - Does the Government really think that all because this project might increase employment, that young people are really going to want their future careers in nuclear waste management? Because I definitely would be more inclined to move to another state than be faced with a 'career' in high level nuclear waste! The people that have been on the roadshow throughout the State have said that people in the regional areas are more inclined to say yes to the dump because they want a future for their children.... again who is to say they will want to stay in the region to have a job/career in waste, i think that would push them out to other parts of Australia instead of staying in the region, wouldn't you say? We need to see that this is not the only way to strengthen the economy for years to come

Do people really realise what this means for SA? We will be even more ridiculed for not managing our state better. We are better than this, we can be such a great state, if we had proper management of it. There is so much more that we can achieve. We want people to stay in our state. I say that people will flee this state to go far away from this project. This is not just about the here and now - this is about now, 20, 100, 1000's of years from now - think about it ...that is a LONG time and its scary.

There is so much money that needs to be put into this project - where are they going to get the money for the upfront costs? From the booming, ageing state of SA? that will make us bankrupt! We cant even properly manage the costs, safety and management of the new hospital, not to mention the state's own children and education system! There is nothing to say that we will be able to recover the costs - all the things they have said is all guess work there is no guarantees.

Greig Ebeling > Rosanna Cappelluti

29 Sep 2016

Rosanna, thankfully there are many people in SA who are not so pessimistic, nor so irrationally afraid of new technology.

Noel Wauchope > Rosanna Cappelluti

11 Oct 2016

There are many more who agree with Rosanna Cappelluti. That's why Weatherill would not dare do what is needed - hold a referendum on the subject. These politicians, either ignorant, bought, or both, and their shonky Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, might still get a surprise with the outcome of the current Citizens' Juries.

I know that these so-called Juries are not allowed to act like a jury - to make any kind of decision or judgment. They are given loaded questions that are intended to lead to propagandising for the nuclear lobby. However, the members of these groups are not stupid, and their discussions might lead to an awakening by the South Australian public, as to how foolish the Royal Commission plan is.

Greig Ebeling > Rosanna Cappelluti

12 Oct 2016

Noel, it is clear that you are not following the process, because if you were, you would know that your comments are BS. Based on polling, less than 1 in 3 people are opposed to nuclear power. I understand that you, and many others, are wedded to your negative views, and nothing will change your opinion. That's fine. But at least accept that there are people with a more optimistic view on the prospects of nuclear technology in SA.

Tony Glasson

21 Sep 2016

The answer is simple, each country manages its own waste......that's it
We don't want everyone's rubbish, and how do we REALLY know what we are receiving ?

Rosanna Cappelluti > Tony Glasson

22 Sep 2016

Exactly! why should we SA be storing other countries waste? Australia has such a small amount of high level waste and I do think Australia should manage its own waste but so should all the other countries who use so much nuclear power in comparison to us

Greig Ebeling > Tony Glasson

29 Sep 2016

Tony an Rosanna. I don;t think you are seeing that this is a business opportunity. We get to make a lot of money out of this. We can use that money to pay for schools and hospitals, instead of having to borrow money for future generations to pay back.

Martin Vizjak

20 Sep 2016

Sound economic management is required for this project to be successful. How can anyone believe that our governments, present or future, is capable of doing this for 10 years let alone 100,000+ years? Just have a look at our debt, local and federal if you need any evidence as that is partly the reason why this project is being contemplated in the first place.
Can someone please provide some long term statistical evidence that supports the idea that is can really be successful? If this cannot be done I suggest we stop now and put the money being spent on overseas trips and fact finding tours into areas that really need the funding.

Michael Bonner

07 Sep 2016

We supply the Uranium and are willing to get paid well got it but seem reluctant not to take it back. If you don't want it back once it has been used then don't dig it up and sell it in the first place.
The return to Australia for storing what we are responsible for creating would go a long way to balance the books which have been badly unbalanced by government ineptitude and pork barrelling. A lot of our recent heavy spending has been based on science, but not on verified science - far to much knee jerk reaction to be seen to be doing something rather than waiting for the initial science to be tested and proven. Desal plant is the perfect example and 'clean energy' production is another.

Claire Catt > Michael Bonner

27 Sep 2016

We also export iron ore. Are we then responsible for what other countries do with that export too, such as the manufacture of weapons.
The concept of continued responsibility after mining exports have left our shore is a concocted idea by the nuclear industry and our Government to get what they want.

Gary Fradd

04 Sep 2016

Weatherill and economics?
Look no further than the $1.8 billion desalination plant that is too expensive to run and will only supply four litres in every 100 used by SA households, not the 50 litres in every 100 it was designed for....and my rates have gone through the roof. What a joke.
The trumpeted economic benefits come back to trust again.

Carmen Verne

01 Sep 2016

If France and the USA have found no problems with tourism and development from their nuclear activities why don't they want the nuclear waste facility in their countries? Why do they want to dump their waste in our country instead? Surely it would provide them with the economic benefits you have worked out.

Harry Degenaar > Carmen Verne

29 Sep 2016

Carmen, the US Department of Energy (DOE) is not investing and supporting the development of Generation IV Nuclear Breeder Reactors. They have reprocessing facilities of High-Level Nuclear Wast and with the deployment of Breeder Reactors will start to use the recycled waste as their fuel. France, Russia, and the UK are doing the same. The nuclear waste is an asset as the new generation of Nuclear Reactors could enable projected global stockpiles of depleted uranium to sustain the world's population at U.S. (the highest in the world) per capita energy usages for over a millennium.

Harry Degenaar > Carmen Verne

29 Sep 2016

Sorry that should read - Carmen, the US Department of Energy (DOE) is now investing and supporting the development of Generation IV Nuclear Breeder Reactors.

Ben Duffield

31 Aug 2016

This thread is irrelevant ..........
......................as the Government, private enterprise or any individual cannot satisfactorily address the 10 points I laid out in my 7th August post.
I'm now requesting (rather confidently, but not arrogantly) that no-one bump this post down until our Premier, Mr Jay Weatherill himself satisfies the issues I have raised. That's right Mr Weatherill, I'm calling you out.... You want a discussion lets have it....

Paul Laris

31 Aug 2016

I am very concerned that SA may be placed at environmental and/or financial risk if the nuclear waste storage project goes ahead. The business case rests on the assumption of continuing demand for storage over several decades. This cannot be assured. If, over that period there is another nuclear power station catastrophe, or the cost of other renewable sources of baseline power falls significantly, then demand for storage, and income, will shrivel. These are both highly plausible scenarios. I note that Germany is committed to closing all nuclear power stations by 2022.

The business case involves temporary surface storage until there is a sufficient accumulation of income to build the very costly underground infrastructure required for safe millenial storage. If demand and income faulters during the next 30 years or so, there is a major risk that we will be left with a large amount of inadequately surface-stored waste - a stranded liability. To leave it that way will be environmentally iresponsible. To store it safely will be financially crippling.

Due dilligence demands we do not proceed to burden our children and suceeding generations with such high levels of risk.

Mary-Ann Lovejoy

29 Aug 2016

The economics of this proposal IMO seem highly speculative. I understand they have not even been costed by someone reputable and independent of ANY bias (pro or con.)
I understand not even Treasury have been permitted to examine the figures - perhaps Belinda could answer that question definitively? Or tell us if that will happen, before we go any further in the debate of economics?
Nick Xenophon responded to my query on his nuclear position - he replied he did not support this proposal as the "alleged" benefits were outweighed by the potential risk. Given it's such an important topic for his/our state, I'm sure he will have examined the figures well, prior to his statement of position.
What runs often through my mind, in discussion of nuclear, is the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster off the USA coast, where the technology that was stated to be beyond reproach caused a huge disaster. The costs, (environmental, economic and social) were devastating, and the company responsible did its best to avoid liability for the cleanup. That frightens me, as not only would our state be devastated by such an event (nuclear waste accident, terrorist attack, human error, equipment failure, whatever the cause) , but how could it be cleaned up? Is it even possible to do so? And what of the resultant cost? Surely it would bankrupt our state?
Like Xenophon, I think the benefits are speculative, and the potential risks too great.
I demand a vote of all citizens before this proceeds any further, to test community consent. If there's not initial consent, how on earth can there be "on-going consent"?

Dean Caruso

16 Aug 2016

There is a large possibility the economic assumptions are totally flawed and such a venture will become an obsolete very costly hole in the ground for the state. Technology is being developed to reuse/ reprocess nuclear waste. Countries will not pay us in the future to take there waste as they will be using it as fuel for the next generation of nuclear power reactors that reuse most of it. Storage of waste is a 19th century solution for a 20th century problem. The rest of the world is moving on and we are living in the past....

The world nuclear association writes:

"moving to fourth-generation fast neutron reactors in the late 2020s changes the outlook dramatically, and means that not only used fuel from today’s reactors but also the large stockpiles of depleted uranium (from enrichment plants, about 1.5 million tonnes in 2015) become a fuel source. Uranium mining will become much less significant."
(http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx)

For example TerraPower (http://terrapower.com/) is a company that plans to have a next generation prototype reactor producing several hundred MW to the grid by 2020 using reprocessed waste.

Richard Harris > Dean Caruso

23 Aug 2016

That's no entirely true. TerraPower only states they "could" have a plant producing power in that time frame, the fact is they won't as they haven't even filed for authorization to begin the build. In fact, worldwide there are very few plants in actual construction. There are a few in the US but they are tied up in red tape and haven't even broke ground to begin the build. A fact that many miss is this, nuclear fuel is only used on average for 18 months, it is then removed and stored onsite in cooling pools. There it sits, there is no place to take these fuel assemblies as there very few processing centers.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Dean Caruso

24 Aug 2016

Hi Dean, thanks for sharing your concerns. This was a topic the Royal Commission investigated and provided feedback in Finding 80 of Chapter 5 of the Report. To quote a section of the finding;

"It was also suggested that advanced reactor designs, such as fast reactors, might also compete with international used fuel disposal services, given that some designs can utilise reprocessed used fuel. Significant barriers to commercial deployment of fast reactors remain, as explained in Appendix E: Nuclear power present and future. They have not been demonstrated to be cost competitive with conventional light water reactor designs. This suggests it is implausible that a fleet of fast reactors could be rapidly deployed internationally with the ability to consume existing and future inventories of used fuel."

Claire Catt

14 Aug 2016

It is utterly unpredictable what the longterm maintenance and security costs of such a large and dangerous dump would be. All figures in the Royal Commission' Report are speculative and untested. The optimistic promises of riches reek of bias and manipulation.
There is far more opportunity in South Australia in a clean and green future with a healthy, involved and participating population. We don't want a dirty secretive industry here which will endanger the longterm well being of us all.

Steven McColl > Claire Catt

26 Aug 2016

Claire so what is waste nuclear fuel?
What is an isotope?
What does the term 'GigaWatt days' mean in terms of waste nuclear fuel?
Where does the US Navy store its fission products and transuranics from the US Navy's:

1) Ten aircraft carriers (hull id: CVN)?
2) Seventy three submarines ( a mix of SSN and SSBN)?

Where does the UK Navy store its fission products and transuranics from its SSN and SSBN.

What is an actinide?

What Australian standard is used to carry out the analysis and design of siesmic structures?

Claire, a large and dangerous dump?

Why is it dangerous? Please tell us all.
Why is it large?
Where is it proposed to go:

a) sub-surface or

b) surface?

Have you attended the seminars by Engineers Australia regarding
1) Australia's readiness for naval nuclear? By the honourable C. Skinner? I learned a lot from it.

dirty? why?

secretive? why?

What is the difference between chemical energy and nuclear energy?

What type of nuclear energy is generated by our sun?

What type of nuclear energy is generated at our very own 20MW reactor?

What type of nuclear energy is used for the testing of compacted fills to AS1289 in deep freeway construction?

*********************************************

Here is another one: What design loads would you propose for a waste fuel depot?

eg:
Heat loads,
Seismic loads,
Wind loads (for any surface proposal).
What lateral pressures exist at a depth of say 100m for a deep depository?
How to design for that?

*******************************

Steven McColl > Claire Catt

26 Aug 2016

Claire what is a transuranic?
And why is it they have very long half-lifes but proportionally less gamma, beta and alpha radiation than fission products?

Strontium-90 is one of the mot potentially dangerous fission product from waste nuclear fuel.

.

Why is that?

Steven McColl > Claire Catt

26 Aug 2016

*most

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

27 Aug 2016

The same rantings from one of the two pro nuclear lobbyists
What is an isotope ?
Still spewing the same drivel
I see you never had the courage to jump on Ben Duffield's post Steven but I'm not surprised hard to argue with someone that has more knowledge than you will gain in your lifetime Steven.

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

27 Aug 2016

Hi Claire Thankyou for your contribution keep up the good work.

Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Thanks for your thoughts Aaron Morley.
I quite agree Australia has made its own decision regarding medical treatment involving the creation of some nuclear waste. Australians benefit from these treatments.
As a consequence of this decision we are responsible for the created waste and must absolutely find the best possible solution within Australia and with minimum transportation.

Canada is attempting to find a solution for their own waste, which is the responsible thing to do. However a safe solution has eluded all nations so far, the costs prohibitive. The same applies to the US.

Surely though it is quite another matter for our Government to propose we import, on an extraordinary scale, the waste from other countries for supposedly financial gain and in the process endangering your own people and the environment for thousands of years.
It's hard to believe any well informed communities would welcome a nuclear dump. In any case we absolutely need to reject this dangerous proposal with all its inherent and unsolvable risks.

Noel Wauchope > Claire Catt

16 Sep 2016

All medical radioisotopes can be made without use of a nuclear reactor. Nuclear medicine has its placer, but it is over-used, and carries some risks to attendant staff and families of patients undergoing some treatments.
It is time that the public woke up to the way that nuclear medicine is being used as a fig leaf over the toxic nuclear industry.

Malgo Schmidt

08 Aug 2016

Benefits to who? Future generations who will be stack with that s... for ever? First Nations whose land was stolen?
Substantial benefits would be to USA, Canada and other dumpers whose peope do not want it.
The only benefits in Australia would be for the criminal creators of this Inernational Nuclear Dump.

Aaron Morley > Malgo Schmidt

11 Aug 2016

That is incorrect! Canada, specifically Ontario are planning for their own deep geological waste repository, in fact at least three communities within Ontario are basically fighting to have it. Canada stands to gain little from Australia's proposal. Similarly the United States, they presently reprocess their own fuel, and have their own storage facilities too.

Christopher Huckel > Malgo Schmidt

11 Aug 2016

Aaron the fountain of knowledge enlighten us all on which countries are going to benefit by Dumping their Toxic Nuclear Waste into Australia who are these countries that refuse to bury their own waste and want us to take it all considering we produce less than a cubic metre of high level waste why should we take tens of thousands of tonnes of this toxic filth Aaron

Aaron Morley > Malgo Schmidt

11 Aug 2016

Geez Christopher, you better hurry up and turn your talents to finding an alternative to chemotherapy, brachytherapy and advise the royal college of surgeons that they're going back to the bad old days of brain surgery without benefit of gamma knife...

Christopher Huckel > Malgo Schmidt

11 Aug 2016

Off track again Aaron please try and stick to the script the Discussion boards about the creation of a Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump try and stay on track please the state of our medical system is for grim I agree but let's prevent South Australia from being turned into the Worlds Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump then we can focus on repairing our broken medical system Aaron.

Aaron Morley > Malgo Schmidt

11 Aug 2016

Replied in the wrong spot... Notice you didn't choose to comment properly where I actually meant that reply to go did you... No response?

Claire Catt

08 Aug 2016

As a simple principal question, one needs to ask how a venture relaying on a once off payment of an uncertain amount could be viable when costs are unknown but certainly lasting for thousands of years. How could that ever add up.

I would speculate the money won't last to actually pay for any underground storage many years hence.
There is certainly no precedent of any Government ever being able to manage a large amount of money responsibly so far into the future. And most certainly not this Government.

So even to the average person, the economics look shonky. The risks however are crystal clear! Several above ground 'temporary' storage sites all over our state for a very very long time to be guarded and somehow kept from all forms of life for thousands of years.

Really, it's unbelievable our own Government is even thinking about it. Money, even if it was there, doesn't come into it. The nuclear industry needs to get out of this country and stop spreading their horrendous problems all over this world.

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Claire,
"The nuclear industry needs to get out of this country"

... And our isotopes for nuclear medicine? The isotopes used by some of our industrial equipment and scanning? The isotopes used for sterilization and food preservation?

Where will we get these necessary products? And once we have procured them, where will they go post use?

The nuclear industry is not one we can simply do without or ignore. Not without a significant reduction in our standard of living.

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Aaron have you bothered to read Ben Duffield comment below if not I suggest you read it I know you will disagree with his honesty and commonsense and experience but that's to be expected from you Aaron.

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Geez Christopher, you better hurry up and turn your talents to finding an alternative to chemotherapy, brachytherapy and advise the royal college of surgeons that they're going back to the bad old days of brain surgery without benefit of gamma knife...

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Regurgitating again Aaron I see lol

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Comment here properly Christopher, I see you took issue to my response to a person that specifically said "The nuclear industry needs to get out of this country". You must therefore think my response was not valid, so my point remains Christopher, start telling us your new treatment in place of chemotherapy.

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

Aaron read Ben Duffield's post below and then try to put your case Aaron .....................we are waiting ..................Aaron .............

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

Ben Duffield has mistaken a waste repository for a machine, many of his assumptions are incorrect.

The system is entirely passive, there is no need for supplemental cooling, there is no need to maintain a certain atmosphere of service, the product is simply stacked and left alone.

We are talking a building little more complex than a warehouse for non perishable goods - with more security (more to keep greenies out than foreign terrorists I might add) and thicker walls.

Ben Duffield > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

In the interests of protecting my fellow man from Mr Morley's attempt at obscuration, diversion and evasion by slipping the premise that:
1) I argued this is about machine failure.
My testimonial was predicated on no less than 10 fundamental issues. Machine failure was not actually stated. Sub-standard manufacturing was listed, ranked 4th out of 10 issues the majority of which related fundamentally to behaviours/politics/the human condition of which we have no control (we only have influence). And;
2) This proposal is just about a little shed in the outback for storing low grade waste.
I remind all readers this proposal is to build two facilities, one to re-process high level radioactive waste and another to store medium and low grade waste infinitum.
Furthermore I would invite all readers to sample a small portion of Mr Morleys other vacuous and facile diatribe and form their own opinions as to what his agenda is and whom it actually serves. (Does his position promote you and your children's best interests? Evaluate- What are your best interests?)
Enough about the theft of oxygen.
The knowledge I have shared with all is a sample of the issues that I am aware of that the gov't has failed to address (because they cannot be addressed by any gov't, private enterprise or individual ever!) and it should serve sufficiently to demonstrate why we should not proceed, however I can expand considerably should the need arise.
As for the misdirection about machine failure etc, I would remind all to consider the following:
1) A high level reprocessing facility does require significant plant.
2) A component part of that plant is the critical cooling plant/service required to stabilise the spent fuel rods (as seen in coolant baths in nuclear power stations). This service must be continuous and un-interrupted. Physics cannot be paused....
3) Despite the apparent 'passivity' of a storage facility, . When considering the time span of this proposal one must consider that nothing is actually inert and the aging of even such things as rock, concrete and steel must be considered.
I am yet to work in any concrete structure greater than just 40 years of age that wasn't suffering significant 'spalling', cracking and erosion. Yet this facility must endure for hundreds if not thousands of years... It cannot be built out of concrete. Stone?? Are we playing a margins game here or what!

Finally please read my original post again and re-read each point until you really understand it. Then you will be able to read between the lines to understand that the non-exclusive, but biggest threat of this proposal lies in the un-controllable fallibility of humanity.
Our very humanity, it's flexible and transient politics, it's predilection for violence, for greed, our hubris and our short life spans and complicit short sightedness are the very reasons why we must not do this. Indeed history evidences that 'h0m0 sapiens' (the species) consistently and repeatedly fails to demonstrate the requisite qualities, values and behaviours required to assume the right to execute such an undertaking.

Ben Duffield > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

That's obfuscation by the way > Morleys attempt to "obscure the intended meaning in communication, making the message confusing, willfully ambiguous, or harder to understand".

Ben Duffield

07 Aug 2016

This post will also appear under economics as economics and safety are intrinsically linked.

I have expert qualification and nearly thirty years real world experience in maintaining complex machines, mechanical engineered systems and highly critical plant and building infrastructure assets.
Currently I am responsible for the South Australian Govt’s 2nd most critical asset. The following observations and opinion however, reflect upon my entire career experience, from both the public and private sector..

During my career I have experienced and dealt with many incidents relating to the plant/assets in my care that were both foreseen and un-foreseen. However they were all attributable to a common collective of causes and they always resulted in a loss of continuous service delivery.

I will list the contributing factors in order of influence from greatest to least contribution:
1. Economics – A reluctance or inability to spend money either as capital investment in initial build or on an ongoing basis in the form of maintenance costs.
2. Politics – In the age of economic rationalism, political effects consistently divorce relevant qualified commentary from governance and all decisions are measured on either short term economic effect (see 1) and/or short term public relations effects. Decisions are taken only with respect to the taxation system, budgets, free market rationalism, return on investment or the tenure (enduring responsibility) of the person taking the decision. IE The politicians, lawyers, economists and finance personnel have been handed the purse strings and predicate every decision on economic factors, (which directly links with their primary role/function as typically this is all they are qualified and often aware to do). They are quiet simply incapable of making a balanced (and therefore good) decision and are often under immense political (career) pressure. Ironically people would considerate it most inappropriate for labourers, tradesmen, scientists, engineers, clinicians, teachers, policemen etc etc to be making decisions in isolation of other disciplines and yet most don’t bat an eye lid when yet another accountant or lawyer is handed ultimate power in decision making about multi-disciplinary fields of endeavour. (It’s a ridiculous situation brought about by the Global banking cartel and the indoctrination of the GDP being the penultimate measure of success of a society, however I am digressing….).
3. Legal or Liable deference – These days it’s often called ‘risk management’. But it’s not a genuine concern with risk to people, property or service delivery, but a desire to mitigate risk to the bottom line or the ability of the organisation to make profit for the shareholder or to avoid litigation. A deliberate undertaking to shift (avoid) all responsibility. This can be evidenced in such things as vacuous and facile risk assessments, SOPs and the practise of utilising contracted services. All of which are fundamentally designed to transfer responsibility to the undertaker. I can appreciate the legal benefit to these activities but they are detrimental to reliable and consistent service delivery (see 6 below).
4. Sub-standard manufacturing – As per 1 above, economic rationalism has brought upon us the age of sub-standard manufacturing. Taking designed obsolesce to new heights. It’s now taken for granted that hardware will fail after EXACTLY 13 months of use. It is incredibly sad for humanity and absolutely devastating to the environment that now in this age where we have the ability to build the most efficient and amazing things that could endure and be serviceable for up to 100 years or more, that we have the global consumer economy, indoctrinating our children to be good little consumers, selling our environmental future for a few bucks now and exploiting human beings through cheap labour. It has aided in removing the ideals of quality, patience, service, care and even grace & honour from our society and replaced them with “get in, get out and get paid” (as quoted to me by a contractors, sub-contractor) or worse still the pirate philosophy of “Take what you can and give nothing back”…..
5. Failure of automation and/or computerised systems – Networked automation systems and business management tools are vulnerable to hardware failure (see 4 above) or software failure (bugs or corruption due to either malicious attack for insider or hacking or the un-intentional corruption by error or omission). Happens a lot more often than most people realise.. A lot more……
6. In-appropriate skills employment/allocation – As per 1, 2 and 3 above, economic rationalism and dilution of law and accountability has brought us the age of the un-skilled worker doing the work that skilled workers used to undertake. Trades recognition Australia, Skilled migrant visas, the tactic of one licenced tradesman supervising up to twenty labourers doing licenced work (I have witnessed this personally), ‘self-accreditation’, ‘self-certification’ and unqualified and inexperienced administration staff employed to administer the application of technical tasks like preventative maintenance, construction, design and clinical management programs etc. This has become the norm’ via economic necessity (see 1 and 2 above) and is not the exception.
7. Operator (human) error – We’re all human, you can apply the classical risk mitigation strategy (elimination, substitution, engineering, standard operating procedures, etc etc but people will always make mistakes. Lack of training, skill, expertise, supervision etc. (see 1, 2 and 6 above)
8. In-appropriate design – The design does not suit the intended purpose properly and creates the environment for work arounds or un-fair wear or mis-use (see 7 above, 9 and 10 Below) This can occur due to error, oversight, change of use (see 9 below) but most commonly occurs during the design and construction phase due to a phenomenon called “cost down” or “cost management”> This always means ‘Pervert the design to suit the budget’. Often the process is so lengthy and political that the final design is somewhat of a ‘Frankenstines monster’ imitation of the original design intent and will not serve its intended purpose effectively, let alone well. It may check all the paperwork KPI boxes etc, but may not translate to an effective built environment at the coal face. REMEMBER THIS> The sale is always made on design A, but design A is never built……
9. Not used as intended – The need or requirement changes and so the organisation attempts to re-employ an asset in a function (Use) for which it was not intended (designed/built) . (see 8 and 7 above) A perversion of employment/function that inevitably must produce (and will further cultivate) an environment of compromise and limited performance aspiration/KPI’s. This inherently results at best in a culture of ‘That’s the best we can do’ and ‘we can’t do any better’ mitigating the defeated from their ideal responsibility to outright ‘Institutionalised or systemic failure’, whereby the environment is so manifestly inappropriate that the business model that has been frankenstined together, even executed perfectly, cannot satisfy the objective.
10. Malicious action – You can apply the classical risk mitigation strategy (elimination, substitution, engineering, standard operating procedures, SECURITY etc etc) but if a person has the desire to effect an act of vandalism, misuse or terrorism then there is potential for them to effect a negative impact on continuous service continuity. This is particularly exacerbated if that person has inside knowledge of or access to that organisations infrastructure/assets etc.

I have shared this knowledge with you as I want you to consider the above and some more points below when formulating an opinion about the SA Govts desire to establish a Nuclear Waste re-processing and storage facility (dump) in SA.

Further to my points above you may have read the ‘for’ and ‘against’ columns in the paper recently where the ‘For’ advocate asserted (amongst other reasonable geological considerations etc) the argument that it would actually be wise to re-locate the entire worlds high level nuclear waste to this one location so as to prevent it falling into the ‘wrong hands’. Sounds reasonable - until you consider that in order to prevent THE ENTIRE WORLDS nuclear waste falling into the ‘wrong hands’, we would have to define exactly what the ‘wrong hands’ are and we would have to be able to guarantee that the governing body of Australia didn’t become the ‘wrong hands’, either through normal political process, invasion, civil war, Da-wa, etc for anywhere (depending on the source referenced) from, 500 to 5,000 years.. We have had two world wars in the last one hundred years, either of which could have resulted in Australias sovereignty changing. Going by history that means that in a best case scenario in order for this waste to have achieved benign status before our storage commitment can collapse our current political system will have to survive, ten (10) more world conflicts, combined with the end of the antibiotic age, peak oil, climate change, over population, peak food, peak water and then population collapse. Stable geopolitical conditions? They can’t get it right now….. I’d suggest at this point that the greatest security of nuclear waste will actually be achieved by disseminating into as many small repositories as possible, so should a breach occur the damage will be limited (relative to this flawed proposal). Indeed concentrating all of the waste into one spot could create a previously non-existent intention to target, capture, control , acquire the entire repository for nefarious use..

Would SA be considering this proposal if it’s economy hadn’t tanked? Are the Vics trying to steal this one from us?
Has this ever been done anywhere else?
Will providing a global dumping ground for nuclear waste discourage or encourage countries from its continued use?
Has SA’s economy been manipulated, manoeuvred and maligned by global corporate collusion to ‘help us’ arrive at this ‘nuclear economic solution’? ……
Of course it has.. It’s been in the pipeline for 20+ years. From what source did Jay receive the Nuclear economy idea/recommendation?
Has he already capitulated SA on your behalf, without asking your permission?

Do we have the moral right to make such a dangerous commitment that extends well beyond our lifespans and enslaves and burdens many future generations?
Has the government and nuclear industry acted immorally by developing a public education package that by its overuse of dollar signs in its happy pictures and use of modest and highly contentious statistics from Fukushima and Chernobyl etc, seeks to weight the economic component of this proposal favourably and underplays the horrific, miserable reality of radiation sickness? What would any sane, rational person reply when asked what the weightings should be for considering the merits of a proposal such as this? Wouldn’t they reply 100% safety, economic considerations should not even be considered or discussed until safety can been guaranteed. And yet they lead with the money and the frankly irrelevant opinion of economists everytime….
Has the government detailed to you it’s countermeasures, the cost of such countermeasures and the effectiveness (or un-effectiveness) of such countermeasures should a:
• Leak occur,
• A large explosive device is detonated within the facility,
• A significant amount of product is stolen from the facility,
• The facility falls under the control of a terrist or foreign force,
• A disgruntled employee sabotages the facility causing a chain reaction of a magnitude that makes Fukushima look like a practice run.
• The government goes broke and cannot maintain the facility
• The country is invaded by a foreign enemy and the facility is threatened or targeted.
• Can you find the answers and more importantly the guarantees you need in here?> http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/

Ponder this….
After some years of operation a serious exothermic reaction (explosion) occurs within the facility, the facilities structure is now severely compromised and the critical cooling plant has failed. Millions of hectares of SA are rendered un-inhabitable for generations. The governments commissioner investigates and determines that the governments contractor was basically insolvent and had been cutting corners and falsifying its operating and maintenance documentation. The facility now weakened and disintegrating, is at risk of total and catastrophic destruction. The whole thing could blow again big time, but this time with a weakened structure the explosion wont be directed or controlled. The engineers don’t know what will happen because it wasn’t designed for this. Personnel and robots cannot go within 5000 metres of it to effect containment, let alone repairs or cleanup due to the amount of radiation present. It doesn’t matter though, because it wasn’t the govt’s fault, it was the contractors. - Sounds outrageous right? All of the contributing elements of this scenario can be found in just two real life incidents, Fukushima and the Gladstone munitions factory in SA… .

Those proposing this are suffering from greed, hubris, conceit, ignorance and arrogance.

In light of my RELEVANT experience with maintaining critical infrastructure assets I implore you in good faith and as a parent to oppose the establishment of any centralised Nuclear storage or any high level reprocessing facility anywhere in AUSTRALIA.

Claire Catt > Ben Duffield

08 Aug 2016

Thank you Ben for your efforts to alert everyone to the grave danger being peddled by the Government. What the nuclear lobby wants is clear but what is the Government expecting to get from this outrageous proposal? Where is there duty of care?

Christopher Huckel > Ben Duffield

09 Aug 2016

Yes thanks Ben hopefully those concerned with this Toxic Proposal can keep up the pressure on our Government to finally put an end to this insidious plan.

Darren Jakobsson > Ben Duffield

10 Aug 2016

Thank you Ben for your concise points showing the scope of so much risk. Your post should be published on every platform across the country to help make sure Australia doesn't pursue a nuclear future!

Ben Duffield > Ben Duffield

11 Aug 2016

Hi Darren,
Thank you for your comment.
I don't participate in electronic media (twitting, F'b'ing etc etc), however this obscene proposal has forced my hand and I could not sit by and do nothing.
Please feel free to re-post my original post if you think it will assist people to understand that No government can guarantee the thousand years of 'continuous, enduring, engineering, finance and political stability required to safely deliver this proposal'. (Let alone income for the entire period....)

Darren Jakobsson > Ben Duffield

30 Oct 2016

I got it out there for you Ben, I sent it every where, anti nuclear face book sites and other media channels as well.
Cheers Darren Jakobsson

Stephanie Johnston

04 Aug 2016

One of the many questionable aspects of its speculative economic scenarios the Royal Commission forgot that we’d have to share any profits with other states.

Aaron Morley > Stephanie Johnston

05 Aug 2016

Why would we have to do that?

Mark Pawelek

03 Aug 2016

In future this "nuclear waste" can be economically used to make reliable baseload electricity. USA already developed nuclear fuel breeder technology, fast reactors and used fuel reprocessing two decades ago with the Integral Fast Reactor project. Today, this technology is promoted by Hitachi as PRISM. We continue to develop even safer reactors cooled by lead or molten salts. The original fast reactors were cooled by molten sodium, and some people do not consider that safe enough.

In a few decades time we should have commercial reprocessing technology able to put most of this used fuel back into reactors to make energy from. About 4% of the used fuel are "fission products" and these will have to be left for a few hundred years. After 300 years such fission products are down to radiological safe levels. The less safe materials are medium lifetime actinides and plutonium. We already developed technology to separate these out to make new fuel to power fast reactors. The "deep green" scare over used nuclear fuel is that it is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Not likely. I confidently predict it will be used as fuel in new reactors within the next 100 years.

If Australia does not want to make clean, non-CO2 electricity from this used fuel, I confidently predict China, India, and Indonesia will.

The story of the integral fast reactor: http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf

Christopher Huckel > Mark Pawelek

04 Aug 2016

Well let them have this wonderful stuff and let's pray we miss out on this opportunity to decimate our clean green image and destroy our beautiful country and put at risk our children and their children for hundreds of generations to come yes let's stick with renewable technologies and steer well clear of becoming the world's toxic nuclear waste dump.

Stephanie Johnston > Mark Pawelek

04 Aug 2016

So Mark, if this is the future for used fuel, why would nuclear countries pay South Australia huge amounts of money to process their waste in an ongoing fashion? Does that mean the basis for the Scarce report economic modelling is flawed?

Stephanie Johnston > Mark Pawelek

04 Aug 2016

And why would any government in their right mind contemplate investing (currently estimates are at $145 billion and growing) – in building an underground repository?

Renae Schmidt

03 Aug 2016

Isn't the land that was proposed to be used owned by an ex-liberal senator. How long has this been in the pipeline? Who is going to benefit? so far I can't see how the general population would benefit, when a government happily buys from many products from overseas to save money, then it costs money to fix the sub standard product. What I mean, is how does the government support Australian companies now? why have so many companies gone off shore? The government should look at educating the population instead of trying to privatise everything including education and healthcare, and then support our innovation and ideas instead of selling them off. That way we actually might progress and get somewhere.

Aaron Morley > Renae Schmidt

05 Aug 2016

Companies don't go off shore due to a lack of government support. Companies by and large go off shore due to a lack of CONSUMER support. We no longer make TVs or anything else super technical in this country because the average member of the public would rather pay a third world child a three bowls of rice a week to make their 55" TV for $2k rather than paying Australian skilled labour $1500/wk to make the same TV for $20k.

You don't want to buy a 'made locally' Mazda 2 for $30k, instead of the imported version for $16k.

The government is not blameless, but 'the government' is not the immediate root cause or solution either.

Christopher Huckel > Renae Schmidt

09 Aug 2016

Let's hope we can keep the Filthy Toxic Nuclear Waste offshore because the risks far outweigh any Fantasy of an economic benefit there is absolutely no economic benefit in burdening future generations with such a Toxic Legacy.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Renae Schmidt

15 Aug 2016

Hi Renae, in regards to a site - the Royal Commission's Terms of Reference did not require it to select a site for the storage of used fuel. The site you are referring to is in relation to the Federal Government's decision to identify a station near Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges to store low-level waste. This is completely separate to what we're discussing in relation to the Royal Commission's findings and recommendations for South Australia.

Christopher Huckel > Renae Schmidt

15 Aug 2016

Hi Renae thankyou we need everyone to speak up to stop this insidious plan to turn us into The Worlds Nuclear Dump.

Peter Lazic

31 Jul 2016

Economics - is this the govt. trying to sell another asset that they do not own after the govt. has sold all of its other income earning assets. Taxi Tom has increased ESL, fines, taxes almost through the roof and still the govt. wastes money (eg. Jay's proposed office upgrade), the never ending RAH, etc, etc all because they think they have discovered the new cash cow - a nuclear waste storage dump that will inevitably be paid for by us taxpayers for generations to come & not just financially.
Shame Labor.

Aaron Morley > Peter Lazic

03 Aug 2016

You seem to be another person who sees this facility as an asset or liability purely to which best suits your argument at the time.

It's either a liability in perpetuity - the line you want to claim, or an asset to be sold, it surely cannot be both, because would be buying a perpetual liability?

Aaron Morley > Peter Lazic

03 Aug 2016

Read the last bit as 'because who would be buying a perpetual liability?'

Peter Lazic > Peter Lazic

03 Aug 2016

Aaron,
The land that would be used for this dump is the asset; the land is owned by the people, not the govt. of the day.
The proposed storage dump would become the liability. There is no conflict in these statements.
Do not play with the words or try to be too clever, just to suit your own opinions.

Aaron Morley > Peter Lazic

04 Aug 2016

The government owns the land? That is an odd thing to say since site selection has not occurred yet. How could you possibly know who owns a location that has not yet been determined?

Stephanie Johnston > Peter Lazic

04 Aug 2016

Aaron, I can't resist. If you knew anything about South Australian land title or SA history you would know that any land north of the Goyder line is on lease from the government and cannot be owned privately. Presumably any proposed site would have to be located north of that line...

Stephanie Johnston > Peter Lazic

04 Aug 2016

And as I keep repeating, no-one knows yet whether the facility (which will likely never be built) would be an asset or a liability. Should we be investing (currently estimates are at $145 billion uncapped and uncertain….) in such a risky proposition? The smart private sector money in Australia is already following renewables and governments are still to catch up.