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

Darren Jakobsson

31 Jul 2016

The World today

Why is Australia looking at Nuclear fuel when the rest of world is so over the nuclear, coal and oil industries and are now doubling their investment in renewable energy, as the following examples state;-

Renewable Energy Investments: Major Milestones Reached, New World Record Set

• Coal and gas-fired generation attracted less than half as much capacity investment as renewables last year;
• Renewables added more to global energy generation capacity than all other technologies combined;
• For first time, developing world investments in renewables (up 19% in 2015) topped developed nations' (down 8%);
• World record total of $286 billion invested in renewables last year; makes $2.3 trillion over 12 years

http://unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?ArticleID=36112&DocumentID=27068

Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels

PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant

One of California’s largest energy utilities took a bold step in the 21st century electricity revolution with an agreement to close its last operating nuclear plant and develop more solar, wind and other clean power technologies.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-diablo-canyon-nuclear-20160621-snap-story.html

Concerned Australian Citizen
Darren Jakobsson

Darren Jakobsson

31 Jul 2016

Clean, Green Renewable Energy is the Right Way

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.

- Japan - Opens its first new Geothermal Power Plant, three years after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima. The mood has shifted and opposition lessened, resulting in a growing number of companies seeking to build as many as 15 geothermal plants within the next five years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10701440/Japans-first-new-geothermal-power-plant-in-15-years-to-open-next-month.html

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/print/volume-18/issue-3/features/geothermal/is-japan-the-next-boom-market-for-the-geothermal-energy-industry.html

- Germany - Decommissioning their Nuclear Power stations after the Fukushima disaster.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/dossiers/challenges-germanys-nuclear-phase-out

- Geothermal in LA - Expanding their use of geothermal energy.

http://www.google.com.au/search?client=ms-android-sonymobile&channel=bm&site=webhp&source=hp&ei=4IihVp-SGcS-0QTHhJC4CA&q=geothermal+baseload+power+for+LA&oq=geothermal+baseload+power+for+LA&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.12..33i21.3672.35961.0.38375.25.24.1.1.1.0.626.10604.2-2j10j4j8.24.0....0...1c.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..1.19.7675.3.Y6u228TeF_E

- Geothermal in New Zealand - Is 90% carbon emissions free and use geothermal energy.

http://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/geo_systems.html

Increase the Solar and Wind energy markets to help with baseload power and develop Biofuels for the transport industry: Cellulose, Corn, Soy, Algal Oil, Sugar Cane, Camelina and Jatropha, Rapeseed - canola oil and Methane.

Better still, Australia needs to make several key policy changes to boost the Electric Vehicle (EV) market and be the forerunners in the EV industry by inviting EV companies like Tesla Motors to establish electric vehicle manufacturing plants to replace Australia’s dying petrol car industry. The Electric Vehicle with Battery Storage market is the answer for the transport sector.

The key of course is the battery technology which is improving all the time both in terms of cost and energy density. Electric Battery storage will revolutionise the energy market, reducing peaking power requirements, optimising grid utilisation of renewables and in some cases enabling consumers to go off the grid altogether.

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.

The Australian government was closely and deeply engaged in the international debate that led to the Kyoto Protocol, however since the Abbott government it seems we have done a total backflip in regards to climate change and the renewables energy markets which is so embarrassing and disappointing on the international stage.

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 uranium and coal 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 which is our constitutional and democratic right.

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 invite such a high risk and 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!!!

Concerned Australian Citizen
Darren Jakobsson

Aaron Morley > Darren Jakobsson

05 Aug 2016

You managed to post these same two posts in all four forums, and I commented first on one of the others, but these seem to be mostly 'economics' issues, so I will reply here.

So as I said in the other one:

"Use Geothermal energy for base load power.

- Japan - Opens its first new Geothermal Power Plant, three years after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima. The mood has shifted and opposition lessened, resulting in a growing number of companies seeking to build as many as 15 geothermal plants within the next five years."

Geothermal does not have the ability to be base load here in continental Australia. Quite simply we do not have the geology, unlike Japan, New Zealand and the western coast of California, Australia does not lie on the so called 'Pacific Ring of Fire'. We do not have volcanos here, we do not have hot springs to the scale of Japan and NZ. Geothermal is just not appropriate for us.

Japan's 'new' geothermal plant is name plated to 2MW, Fukushima is name plated to 4.7GW.

Japan might be planning on opening fifteen plants in five years, that's nice, they need 2350 of these plants to replace Fukushima. Here's hoping a bunch of Japanese are not to reliant on the energy they'll be missing over the next 785 years of geothermal plant building... That's excluding the absolute certainty of an increase in Japan's energy needs increasing during that time!

"Increase the Solar and Wind energy markets to help with baseload power"

It matters not how much you increase solar and wind, they do not help with the base load problem, wind is particularly awful. Too much wind expansion is the reason SA has the worst power pricing and reliability in the developed world. Regularly, wind production in SA regularly fluctuates by upwards of 200MW, that's the equivalent of a full gas thermal plant (or 100 'new' Japanese geothermals) that need to be built and just sitting around idle for when the wind either drops, or increases beyond the turbines' capabilities. SA pays a lot for the privilege of keeping a thermal plant in perpetual backup, when it's needed it costs big dollars and we pay through the nose for it. If wind were base load, the lights would be going off quite regularly.

"develop Biofuels for the transport industry: Cellulose, Corn, Soy, Algal Oil, Sugar Cane, Camelina and Jatropha, Rapeseed - canola oil and Methane"

Biofuels - I am sorry to say, are silly. Unless they're a GENUINE byproduct (and invariably they're not) it does not seem to make sense that a world that does not produce enough food for its population would devote edible foods (corn, soy, sugar cane, rape, etc) to being turned into fuels. It just does not make sense!

Likewise, even non edible plant sources don't make sense, this land could be better used to grow food crops. Even commercially grown algae, takes up space which even if the soil is not suitable for normal cropping, could be used for hydroponic crops for food. Jatropha has fallen out of favour because it's not exactly economical on water use in production. Camelina is a neat plant, but not for fuel, more because there is a GM variant that produces fish fat oils in the seed - that's a cool development.

That said, even if you could explain away the irrationality of burning food, you're still contributing to CO2 emissions, we might as well dig up hydrocarbons. Also of note is that there is no one country in the world that has successfully operated a waste dump for the toxic CO2... - Sorry, that's for Christopher's benefit.

"The key of course is the battery technology which is improving all the time both in terms of cost and energy density. Electric Battery storage will revolutionise the energy market, reducing peaking power requirements, optimising grid utilisation of renewables"

Batteries are no solution to SA's power issues, I reckon it'd be a nice, relevant exercise for you Darren to calculate the required total capacity of your battery backed network Darren - I hope you're good with big numbers, and that's before you calculate the price... Batteries might be improving in cost and energy density (so are nuclear power plants incidentally) but they still have charge and discharge losses, they are still a product with a finite life, made from a finite (often toxic Christopher) resource. Batteries still take a lot longer to charge than to discharge, and frankly I am not so sure that SA's 'green' energy is produced in excess for significant time to recharge the batteries. Wind in particular, as I mentioned above is particularly bad, being able to produce excess energy for ten minutes per hour during a gust, will be meaningless to a battery bank. Meaningful charge would only come if the excess production occurred with stability for hours on end, this just doesn't appear to happen.

So much more to mention, but even I get bored with it all sometimes.

Christopher Huckel > Darren Jakobsson

09 Aug 2016

What a shame Aaron you get bored with it all it nearly comes close to how most of the people feel with your desperate attempts to jump on everyone's posts with your lopsided attempts to back the Pro Nuclear Lobby.

Aaron Morley > Darren Jakobsson

11 Aug 2016

Feel free to post some method of gaining reduced carbon footprint base load energy then... No? Don't know how to do that Christopher? Doesn't surprise me.

Christopher Huckel > Darren Jakobsson

11 Aug 2016

If all you can suggest Aaron is turning Australia into a Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump it's yourself that needs to go back the drawing board Aaron.

Kain McKenzie

30 Jul 2016

A couple of questions I have are:

1. Who will own this storage facility? Will it be State, Federal, or PRIVATELY owned?

2. The Royal Commission has stated that the facility could 'generate $100 billion in income over the 120-year life of the project'. 120 years? The radioactivity of high level wast is dangerous for millions of years. Any country that dumps their waste here should pay a price for the entire time it is stored in this state, and for the time it is at unsafe levels!

Perhaps the large cost of storing nuclear waste will entice Governments to place emphasis on implementing more cleaner and safer energy generation methods. According to the UN nuclear agency IAEA there are many benefits with thorium compared to uranium, which is currently used in nuclear reactors. So, why isn't it being used on a wider scale? India and China are investing quite a lot into thorium reactors, but this will be a discussion for when the Government inevitably tries to convince people about building a nuclear power plant here.

3. When the revenue does eventually make it into the State coffers, how much will the people of South Australia benefit from it directly? Will our roads be any better, because I thought that is what the 40c excise tax was for? Will taxes or cost of living really down? Or will our politicians give themselves another pay-rise?

Aaron Morley > Kain McKenzie

04 Aug 2016

If SA were to get a nuclear power plant then I would hope it would be of the thorium type. Thorium reactors are not without their difficulties, but for the most part they do not produce the transuranics. As such thorium reactors are not able to contribute to nuclear weapon proliferation, and that's a good thing.

Christopher Huckel > Kain McKenzie

04 Aug 2016

Let's hope we stay well clear of this Filthy Toxic way to produce electricity.

Aaron Morley > Kain McKenzie

05 Aug 2016

You do understand that Thorium is pretty much responsible for life on this planet don't you? Thorium is the earths own natural heater.

Christopher Huckel > Kain McKenzie

09 Aug 2016

Aaron do you understand they don't want to Dump Thorium in South Australia but Toxic High Level Nuclear Waste that needs to be kept from escaping and leeching into our beautiful environment for more than several Hundreds Of Thousands of Years how could anyone in their right mind trust the Powers to be to look after and protect us from this Filthy Toxic Nuckear Waste for such a time frame the fact is in all honesty you could not in all good conscience do it knowing that you would be leaving such a Filthy Toxic Legacy for thousands of generations to come. No This Insane Stupidity needs to be stopped and the Proponents of this Insane Toxic Proposal need to be prevented from ever being able to bring this type of Toxic Proposal up again for the sake of all Australians now and into the Future.

Aaron Morley > Kain McKenzie

11 Aug 2016

Christopher, if everything posted pro nuclear is so regurgitated, how is it so that you can make howlingly stupid responses showing no idea of what was posted? This is regurgitated according to you, you've seen it all before, so by now you ought to know the right answers, yet time and time again you stuff it up.

We wouldn't be dumping thorium Christopher, learn something! We'd be USING thorium! Big difference!

What wastes from a thorium reactor are long lived Christopher? I'll give you a hint (you don't need) there's no plutonium, and little proliferation chance. Why? Thorium is not responsible for transuranics...

Christopher Huckel > Kain McKenzie

11 Aug 2016

Aaron you have lost your way again but let me help get you back on track it's not Thorium they intend Dumping onto Australians but the worlds High Level Toxic Nuclear Waste Aaron only after achieving their Filthy Toxic Proposal will they then pursue a Filthy Toxic Nuclear Reactor yes that's their Filthy Toxic Agenda Aaron

David Pitt

28 Jul 2016

David Freesmith. The points you raise are of great relevance, perhaps this is where we should invest the money.

David Freesmith

27 Jul 2016

Has consideration been given to the likely impact on many of our current industries which benefit heavily from SA's clean, green and safe image? These industries include international education, wine, agriculture and tourism. For example, when overseas families decide to send their children for English language schooling or university, they choose from dozens of rival Australian and international cities. With so many alternatives available, why would they choose the world's nuclear waste dump? Similarly global wine consumers have dozens of choices from around the world in every liquor store. Why would they choose a bottle from the place where they send their nuclear waste? I'd like to see an economic impact study on these industries.

Karen Bubna-Litic > David Freesmith

28 Jul 2016

I absolutely agree David Freesmith. If SA had an industry policy, instead of always shooting from the hip, it would be clear that a nuclear waste dump is incompatible with our tourist focused industries.

Steven McColl > David Freesmith

29 Jul 2016

David are you planning on living down there? AS4360.

Steven McColl > David Freesmith

29 Jul 2016

Just more unmitigated twaddle from the ignorant on this topic.

And don't accept any technetium-99 if you get cancer.

.

ummm what's that?

.

No idea from the ignorant.

Aaron Morley > David Freesmith

30 Jul 2016

David, the 'clean and green' image is not at stake.

The French and Germans have vastly more nuclear industry involvement than Australia, including energy production, fuel reprocessing (the French in particular do it on an international scale - including spent fuel from Australia) and waste storage. The French exported 12 billion EUROS worth of wine, and Australia much less, less than 2 billion AUD.

Cheese? The Germans exported 3.8 billions USD, just ahead of the French 3.3 billion USD, Australia? 655 million USD.

Two countries with bigger nuclear industries than Australia, not to mention being 'allegedly' overflown by that scary cloud from Chernobyl, I have never heard anyone sanely question the question the quality of German and French produce, it is some of the most celebrated produce in the world.

What happens in Bure stays in Bure, so long as your talking about the nuclear facility, the wine from Bure aka Champagne doesn't stay, it goes all around the world.

Christopher Huckel > David Freesmith

30 Jul 2016

Still tag teaming Steven and Aaron

Aaron Morley > David Freesmith

30 Jul 2016

Chrsitopher you have more 'one liners' than the politicians! At least they occasionally make some sense.

Christopher Huckel > David Freesmith

01 Aug 2016

Great to so many informed individuals standing up to the Pro Nuclear Lobbyists and their Pro Nuclear Rhetoric keep up the great work makes me proud to be a South Aussie.

Aaron Morley > David Freesmith

11 Aug 2016

Just a pity non of the antis can get it right...

Christopher Huckel > David Freesmith

11 Aug 2016

The Pro Nuclear Lobby are becoming desperate.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > David Freesmith

15 Aug 2016

Hi David, thanks for sharing your concerns. The report found there was no compelling evidence that nuclear activity in SA would adversely affect other sectors such as tourism and agriculture, aquaculture or viticulture provided those facilities were operated safely and securely. This conclusion was reached by the Royal Commission based on the experiences of countries such as France and the USA who have significant involvement in all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle yet have world-leading industries as mentioned above.

David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

Stephanie I totally agree with your comments , to stop this we all need to discuss the proposal within our friend ship groups. Be it for or against this proposal people need to post there position on these sites and email there local member or this will go through with little fuss.

Stephanie Johnston

26 Jul 2016

The economic proposition just seems like one of those speculative pie-in-the-sky state government dreams (remember the MFP?!?!) not to mention the State Bank fiasco, then the mining boom that never came? Go back 175 years, and the history of this state is full of speculative pipe dreams like this, more often than not associated with the mining industry. The proposition isn't real, but it will likely result in us changing a law that currently gives us a point of difference to other states and other countries (nuclear waste free). Just exploring the idea will cost a lot of money, (it already has!) possibly put us at much greater financial risk than we already are, threaten our growing clean and green reputation along the way, and possibly lead us to managing a pile of above ground waste with future generations waiting for an underground dump that will never happen. We should build on our regional strengths, and our point of difference, not fantasise about making money where others so far have failed ...

Aaron Morley > Stephanie Johnston

27 Jul 2016

The economics of the proposal are not pie in the sky, but they are speculative.

There needs to be a change in the current legislation to allow a decent economic analysis to be done.

David Pitt

26 Jul 2016

For all the money that has been spent and will need to be spent prior to a contract with a country that wants to have the waste disposed of. I feel there are so many intelligent people out there. If this is the best idea we have to make money then were in real trouble. I feel that the reason the government is chasing this idea, is because they think they can get the money to build it from the country of origin. Basically the government cant see where to gain any more revenue, and Labor Or Liberal parties alike have sold nearly all the assets off to make bottom lines look good, to gain reelection instead of looking after the State and country. NB I am involved in the citizens jury on this topic

Christopher Huckel > David Pitt

26 Jul 2016

Thanks for your honesty on this issue David we need more Australians like your good self let's pray it can be stopped before it's too late.

Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Economics just a bunch of best case scenarios not actually based on fact or have they factored into their costings the billions of dollars required when a catastrophic failure occurs at the Dump site and make no mistake this will happen it's just a matter of time.