Hi Steve, we understand your concerns. Certainly no decision has been made on this topic - the Citizens' Jury is a balanced process and the Jurors have control over which witnesses they choose to hear from, and what topics they choose to discuss. The Jury represents a wide range of views on the topic of increasing SA's nuclear activity and the report in which they produce will be a key input into the Government's decision. Don't forget you can view the Citizens' Jury livestream and video library at any time (head to the Citizens' Jury Two page) so you can watch the proceedings and see what information the Jury have access to. Many thanks.

Yes. If it can happen it will happen, and at the worst possible time. The people of SA are being suckered and we should all stand up and say NO.

Thorium and molten salt reactors – full of problems. claims do not stand up to critical scrutiny, and that these technologies have significant drawbacks including:
 the very high costs of technology development, construction and operation.
 marginal benefits for a thorium fuel cycle over the currently utilised uranium /
plutonium fuel cycles
 serious nuclear weapons proliferation hazards
 the danger of both routine and accidental releases of radiation, mainly from
continuous ‘live’ fuel reprocessing in MSRs
 the very long lead time for significant deployment of LFTRs of the order of half a century – rendering it irrelevant in terms of addressing current or medium term energy supply need….https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/thorium-and-molten-salt-reactors-full-of-problems/

Mark Anderson from CDR McColl here (my handle reflects that many of us have not read the NFCRC report – it is long and I am still reading it lol). Noel have you read the NFCRC report?
.

Mark and Noel thank you for your posts regarding the Molten Salt Reactors (MSR).

Noel we should take your contribution here onboard - because in a group together we’re best to take all options forward right up to through the design stage without rushing to pre-conceived notions – deleting design options only at the end of the design stage.
.
That’s why nuclear energy needs to be included in the energy mix as much as Solar, Hydro, King coal and others.
.

Mark I liked your post because it was informative to engage those uninformed (I too still learning also about the MSR).
.

Mark Anderson, since reading your post about the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) after reading about the MSR in The Weekend Australian 8-9 Oct 2016 by Ian Napier from St Peters South Australia, I found it interesting.
.

Unlike solid-fuel reactors, there is no potential damage from fissioning Xenon gas to fuel rods in the Molten Salt Reactor because there aren’t any fuel rods in the MSR!
.

And at the bottom of the MSR core there is a fan-cooled ‘freeze plug’ so that:
.

(a) If during a ‘BOUNDING EVENT’ the molten salt coolant gets too hot (over the 700 deg. C normal operating temperature) this freeze plug at the bottom of the reactor melts simply emptying the molten-salt nuclear-fuel mix into emergency dump tanks where fission cannot continue to occur.
.

(b) IF ELECTRICITY IS LOST, the cooling-fan fails allowing the same freeze plug to melt then emptying the contents of the molten-salt nuclear fuel mix into the emergence dump tanks where fission cannot continue to occur also.
.

Nb: (a) and (b) above is true when the ‘fast neutron’ spectrum is adopted eg: for burning Plutonium-239 from weapons stock. because when the fuel-salt mix expands into the dump-tanks it expands so the fission density is less.
.
More so, when the ‘slow neutron’ spectrum is adopted because, there’s the Graphite moderator for the slow neutron spectrum is inside the reactor core not in the dump-tanks.
.

Aside: For those that don’t know Graphite is used as a ‘moderator’ to slow the kinetic speed of the neutrons enough to increase the probability of capture by slow neutron fuel nuclei for the splitting such as U-235 nuclei.
.

I like it!
-
And Mark do not worry, I just went to the link that Noel Wauchope referenced here under your post.
.
I read it and the internet reference link starts with the following: 'Thorium: Not ‘green’, not ‘viable’, and not likely’. Posted on the internet I see written by Oliver Tickell, April / May 2012. (with due respect to Noel - thank you Noel – I do not blame you, another Green spiel without engineering anecdotal, theoretical or empirical evidence.
-
Noel you must have been searching the internet for days to find something to resent Mark Anderson’s post telling all about the MSR! – so from all your searching, why did you not read about the MSR and learn about it?

********
First claim by Oliver Tickel: Thorium and molten salt reactors – full of problems. WHAT PROBLEMS PLEASE?
.
Second claim by Oliver Tickel: "Do not stand up to critical scrutiny": WHAT SCRUTINY?
BY WHOM?
By Admiral Hyman Rickover?
By Admiral Dave Johnston? It was Admiral Dave Johnson at Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) that recently had a model of Russia’s mighty new 13500t Sevorodvinsk (Yasen-class) submarine built outside his office in the common area. So that all could see this excellent submarine. I have seen it. Have you? NO.
.
Now, Third claim by Oliver Tickel: 'and that these technologies': Answer: WHAT TECHNOLOGIES? (generalisation).
.
Next claim by Oliver Tickel: 'have significant drawbacks including: 'the very high costs of technology development, construction and operation'.
.
Answer: What very high costs of construction? mmm note the added ‘very’ adjective put in.
Answer: What very high costs of construction?
Answer: What very high costs of operation?
.
Next claim by Oliver Tickel:
'marginal benefits for a thorium fuel cycle over the currently utilised uranium /plutonium fuel cycles’
.
Answer: Noel and Oliver this is nonsene because the Thorium fuel-cycle or the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) fuel cycle has four fuel-cycle options as follows:
.

FIRST FUEL CYCLE OPTION for the MSR: Maximum conversion up to 1.07 (can bread 7% of the fuel it burns).
.

SECOND FUEL-CYCLE option for the MSR: Thorium-232 and Uranium fuel cycle (Th-232, beta decays to Protactinium, then into Uranium-233).
********
[Noel does the Oliver Tickel who posted the link that you referenced know what Thorium-232 is?]
********

THORIUM IN AUSTRALIA:
Because Australia has most of the World’s Thorium and all Thorium comes only in one isotope: Th-232.
India has the world’s second most Thorium.
And South Australia has about 10 kt (10 000t) in hard rock deposits, and including an operating mine at the Eucla basin NW of Adelaide – plus two Heavy mineral sand deposits of Thorium.
.

[A lot of these naysayers don’t put forward any demonstrated knowledge on anything nuclear]
********
.
THIRD FUEL-CYCLE cycle option for the MSR: Denatured “once-through” actinide burning.
.
FOURTH FUEL-CYCLE cycle option for the MSR: Actinide burning with “continuous recycling” or renewable energy – agreed?
Apparently this fourth option is favoured for the Generation IV MSR.
.

Nb: Co-generation is also offered by the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) because the high coolant outlet temperature of around 700 deg. C allows for Hydrogen production.
.

[Does Oliver Tickel who posted this rubbish on the internet know what co-generation means?]
[Does this same person (or do you Noel) know anything about the how an MSR actually works?]
[This is one of my favourite: How to get a 700 degree Celsius coolant-outlet temperature from Wind mills or Solar panels or Coal plants or Gas plants or Hydro plants?]
************************
I also like the MSR because unlike the Generation II Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) and Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) with the MSR there is no need to pressurise the reactors (up to around 15MPa) and associated plumbing to obtain boiling points up to around 325 degrees C to get good heat transfer into the Primary heat exchanger.
.

Because the fluoride salt in Molten Salt Reactor melts at around 400 deg. C (please check) and has a normal operating temperature of around 700 deg. C.
Apparently UF4 fuel, blended into a mix of NaF with Zr4 (are the preferred fluoride salts for the electricity option).

I could go further. . .
*****
.

Now here are some facts regarding the time-line of the MSR:
.

1944: Eugene Wigner argued for a Thermal breeder program using Th-232 as the fertile material and U-233 as the fissile material.
.
[Noel with due respect: Do you or Oliver Tickel know what fertile means? And do you or Oliver Tickel know what fissile means?]
.
Then later in 1944: Wigner’s protégé: Alvin Wienberg followed Wigner’s path at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
.
In 1947: Eugene Wigner proposes a fluid-fueled thorium reactor
.
1950: Alvin Weinberg becomes ORNL director
.
1952: The first Homogenous Reactor Experiment (HRE-1) finishes the design stage. And in the same year the construction stage of the HRE-1 is also completed.
.
1954: It is proposed to solve the problem of the B36 bomber from having to land, by keeping it in the air for longer periods to bomb the Soviets at short notice and therefor to propose the Aircraft Experimental Reactor (AER)to generate heat inside the core of the turbojet engines but with no compressor.
The ‘ARE’ successfully operated for a 1000 h cycle.
.
1958: The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) commenced following the success of the Aircraft Experimental Reactor (AER).
.
1959: AER convenes “Liquid fuels task force” to choose between the following liquid fuel reactor options:
(1) Aqueous homogeneous reactor,
(2) Liquid fluoride,
(3) Liquid-metal fuelled reactor
**********
ASIDE: At this time the successor to SSN-571 the highly successful USS Nautilus, a sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor was installed to make the most of the better conductivity of a liquid-metal coolant but was considered not so suitable for submarine partially due to the fact that sodium reacts violently when coming in contact with water.
.

- So the simple and reliable water-cooled PWR was adopted as the standard reactor for all US Naval submarines, right up to today with the S9G reactor in SSN-774 Virginia class.
Nb: The S9G reactor never needs refuelling!
US Navy reactor designation S9G. S: ‘Submarine platform’, 9: 9th generation, G: General electric design. Fuel: U-235.
.

And all US Naval Aircraft Carriers have followed suit, all being propelled by the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR).
.

US NUCLEAR FUELED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS: Currently the US Navy have ten, with a further three under construction being the ‘Gerald Ford class’ -around 100 000t displacement (or 100kt).
The Gerald Forde class Aircraft Carrier will be powered by the A1B reactor.
Fuel: U-235.
US Navy reactor designation A1B. A: Aircraft carrier platform, 1: 1st generation from the designer, B: Bechtel design].
*********

MSR timeline continued . .
.

1961: The design of the Molten Salt Reactor is successfully completed and construction begins of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE), later that year the construction was successfully completed.
.
1965: The MSRE went critical on June 01. [Noel do you know what ‘critical’ means in terms of atomic energy?]
.

And during this year the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) operated for four and one half years until it was shut down in Dec 1969, the success of the MSRE was that it was the first reactor to operate on all three fissile fuels: U-233, U-235 and Pu-239.
.

*********
[Noel do you or Oliver Tickel know what U-233 is? U-235 is? Pu-239? Know what these suffixes mean? Familiar with the Periodic table of elements? Noel I think the MSR is a brilliant option and for many good reasons.]
.
MSR timeline continued . .
.

1973: The AEC moved to cancel the MSRE, in part because Nixon politically wanted to commit to the Sodium-cooled Fast Neutron Reactor (SFR) because apparently Nixon after the Vietnam War wanted to appease the Soviets and use the SFR to burn Plutonium-239 from US weapons stockpiles (please check) Nixon’s motive.
But in part the AEC was heavily committed to the Sodium-cooled Fast neutron reactor (SFR) as a breeder reactor.
.

[Noel: do you know that nuclear reactors that have a breeding ratio >1.0 are ‘renewable energy’? Do you know how this works? So renewable energy is not just Solar and Wind turbines]

From 1973 onwards the MSR program has been continuing. . .
.

And since 1973 former NASA engineer Kirk Sorensen revived forgotten molten salt reactor (MSR) technology in the two-thousands, interest in the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technology has been growing quickly.
.
Since 2011, four separate companies in North America have announced plans for the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) as follows:
.

a) Flibe Energy,
b) Transatomic Power,
c) Terrestrial Energy and
d) Martingale, Incorporated.
.
Other countries renewing interest in the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR): Japan, Russia, France and China.
.

So why this sudden interest in the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technology, that dates back to the nineteen fifties?

.

The answer lies partially in the following:
.

- The phenomenal safety of the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)
- Lack of control over the magnitude and timing of energy input with the wind and solar options.
- Man-made climate change
- Electrical energy poverty.
- When Thorium-232 is used for fuel Thorium does not need enrichment, this is because all Thorium is Th-232.

The first point above: SAFETY OF THE MSR:
.

SAFETY: If the reactor gets hotter than 700 degrees C, as already mentioned above the molten liquid fuel-salt inside the reactor core becomes less dense, so as fission decreases due to the sparseness of neutrons flying around. And when the molten liquid fuel-salt cools, it becomes denser so fission increases.

The MSR is dynamically stable: heats up so fission decrease - cools down so fission increases.
***
SAFETY: An operator cannot even force a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) to overheat.
Because even if for some reason a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) were to overheat, the heat freeze-plug at the bottom of the reactor vessel dumps the fuel into the dump tanks.
***
SAFETY: Nonetheless, should the fuel-salt in the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) overheat then it would melt the freeze plug made of salts (as previously mentioned) at the base of the reactor core that is kept solid by a cooling fan. Then emptying the reactor into emergency dump tanks where the fuel can cool safely.
***
SAFETY: If electricity is lost, the cooling fan will turn off and allow the freeze plug at the base of the reactor core, to also melt, automatically emptying the reactor into the emergency dump tanks where it can no longer fission.
***
SAFETY: The neutron absorbing control-rods at the top of the reactor provide further control of the fission when lowered into the core.

***
SAFETY: The MSR does not need to be pressurised like the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) or Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) to raise the boiling point because a non-water coolant is adopted.
***

SAFETY: The MSR cannot have its fuel rods ‘melt-down’ because the Uranium-Fluoride blended with the molten Fluoride salts is already molten.
***
SAFETY: A test in the nineteen sixties in the United States showed that a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) can continue to run safely without operator intervention - even after intentional removal of a control rod during full operation.
***
SAFETY: Thermal coefficient: negative (no thermal runaways possible like that happened at both the Generation II Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) at Prypat Ukraine and Fukushima Daiichi Japan).
***
Now to be fair some DRAW BACKS of the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) as I understand:
.

-SOLUBILITY: Solubility of minor actinides and lanthanides in molten fluoride salt-fulL for actinide management with high actinide concentrations.
- WASTE: Still some nuclear fuel waste in the form of unburned actinides after continuous recycling
- EXTRA PLANT: Chemical processing plant required.
.
SOME FEATURES OF THE MSR:
- SIMPLICITY: No solid fuel rods, no Xenon gas problems, no fabrication of fuel rods required and no enrichment required for the U-235 option.
- RENEWABLE ENERGY: The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) allows for actinide feeds.
-PLUTONIUM-239 burn: For reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles (when no graphite Moderator is used)
- HYDROGEN PRODUCTION: The high coolant outlet temperature allows for hydrogen production.
- NON PROLIFERATION: the waste from THE MSR is not useful for nuclear weapons since the MSR fissions most actinides and the short-fall in *transuranics because the atomic number of Thorium is only 90.
*transuranics that ‘beta-decay’ all having atomic numbers greater than ninety-two – Uranium’s atomic number.
.
Now some questions for you Noel and to Oliver Tickel’s nonsensical post onto the internet:
.
How does one expect to get a 700 degrees C. outlet coolant temperature from Wind turbines and Solar panels?
NOT POSSIBLE.
.
How does one generate around the 1GW of electricity required for: Petrochemical production and Hydrocarbon splitting from Windmill and Solar options?
.
Noel, what are Oliver Tickel's engineering solutions to burning Plutonium-239 from weapons stockpiles? NONE.

[Noel I do yield that point that using the Solar-thermal option solves the ‘intermittency’ problem of Solar because of the entropy in the salt overnight, but Solar-thermal only produces about 20 MW, the magnitude is too small.
However I do respect your concerns Noel.

Noel have you been to Oak Ridge Noel? Some students from the Navel Nuclear Power Training Command (NNPTC) in South Carolina where the US Navy grads go have been to Oak Ridge.
By educating ourselves about what is important to us makes us more powerful.

Noel and Mark thank you for your posts regarding the Molten Salt Reactor bringing this option forward as a team in the design stage working in a group. And one would think that Australians would take advantage of having most of the world’s thorium.

Kind regards CDR McColl.

Some references: http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/
IAEA document: ‘Roadmap to generation IV nuclear energy systems’ document#: GIF-002-00 Issued by the Dept. of Energy nuclear energy research advisory committee and the Generation IV international forum.

Good work Mark, thank you for introducing both the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) to the debate - you're welcome to check my post for a revised version- cheers.
CDR McColl.

And the Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactor (LFTR) as a subset to the MSR also - regards CDR McColl.

Wow!!!
Cheers CDR McColl. That would normally be a bit of information over load for most but your reply was to the point and so informative.

You could add another benefit of using the salt water in the heat exchange when producing steam for generation. The by product is fresh water and salt. Cheap desalination plant for our state.

I really can see that this technology will take our state into the future. We could be getting free electricity for South Australia, paid for by the rest of the world.

Lets be the innovators not the sheep.

Steve, I am not sure what you envisage happening in a worst case accident, but I believe you are exaggerating the outcome. I mean, they exploded nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they are both now thriving cities. Nuclear waste is difficult to manage, but it is isn't anywhere near as dangerous as you seem to think it is.

Greig, I think you are missing the point. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tiny bombs in comparison the the huge accumulation of high level waste that will be stored in a facility that will eventually crumble anyway and release its contents into the environment. We are also talking about transporting this material from around the world to SA, a process that will continue for many years. As with yesterday's power event, you can't predict what could go wrong so it would be foolish to expose the population of SA to such risks.

Greig, the safety impacts of nuclear waste storage are so far more serious than the safety of the bombs of WWII vintage; for instance, imagine the power of the bomb over Nagasaki being magnified by a power of 10,000 and with an impact that will last over 100,000 years. Hell, even your dentist leaves the room when he xrays your teeth! To get a full(er) scope of the power of this development, view the profound documentary of what Sweden&Norway are doing to manage their waste at Onkalo. You can view it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wke01P0rz2Q

Steve and Mike, again you have expressed a view that the HLW is extremely dangerous without actually quantifying the risk. From my perspective, you are irrationally afraid, and responding emotively. What do you imagine might go wrong in a worst case scenario, and what would be the negative outcome you envisage? How could such a mishap be worse than exploding a nuclear weapon over a city?

Mike, everyone knows that over exposure to radiation is to be avoided. But we live with that risk every day, we accept such risks (eg dental xrays) because we get benefits. That is the situation with HLW management in SA, we face risk but there are big economic benefits. How do arrive at the conclusion in this case that the risks are greater than the benefit?

An ICBM targeting a tiny facility in the SA outback. Oh sure, now that's a military strategy! And no, North Korea does NOT have the technology to achieve that, even if they wanted to. How about some sensible comments?

Grieg, it was an example of what could go wrong. More likely what will happen is that the internal pressure of the canisters will rise over acceptable limits turning them into pressure cookers that vent radioactive steam that no one will want to enter the area to fix. How could that happen? Put them in a desert just when global temperatures are climbing. That's one way.

Mike, the accident you envisage is no more likely than North Korea deliberately targeting a waste management facility in SA, and actually hitting it. Sensible comments please.

Joel, please explain to me why we need to spent huge money to invest in nuclear energy so we can afford to invest in green energy. Nuclear energy will need to be hugely subsidised to get off the ground. It would never pay for itself in 25 to 50 years. Green technology is developing now. Why delay this by going nuclear first?

Yes, nuclear power is not cheap. Caulder Hall was the very first nuclear power station and was built in Britain and the population there are still paying for the very first watt of electricity generated as that fuel will need to be stored for thousands of years. They created it, and it is their problem. We don't want it here.

Tom and Steve please read what Joel posted and educate yourself on what he is talking about. MSR's are cheaper than the standard Gen2 reactors, produce very low level waste because they consume the majority of the fissionable material and are 'walk away' safe. What you are talking about are the BWR reactors not LFTR or MSR reactors. Education is the enemy of ignorance.

Oh and if you want to talk about green energy LFTRs/MSR's are up there with the best. Educate yourself.

Dear free energy conspiracy theorist,

Even including Cherbobyl and Fukushima, nuclear is still safer than solar PV in terms of mortality /kWh produced. So can the Earth cannot afford more solar PV?

Greig, that is a facile argument. And, how is that ratio calculated?

Grieg, if it's so safe and effective why is the number of reactors in use dropping? Dropping from 435 eight years ago to 408 in use this year, with no new ones being commissioned? It's a dying technology.

Steve, the argument is based on number of deaths (sourced from the WHO) relative to the kWh produced by the respective technology. Not a difficult calculation. I can assure you the numbers are correct. There is a good discussion here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Mike, your are wrong - nuclear is not dying, it is growing. China is building 60 reactors, many more planned around the world. France has solid plans to replace their entire fleet with IFRs starting around 2030. Facts here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

Nice Greig. Want to throw in the fact that interest in other much safer forms of fission reactors is exploding too (Pardon the pun).

Only problem Greig is people hear nuclear and rather than educate themselves they follow the crowd even though the evidence is shows against them.

Popular opinion is not always the right opinion otherwise the world would still be flat ^_^

Mark, are you aware that a poll of SA residents that less than 1 in 3 is opposed to nuclear power?

Hi Josh, thanks for joining the conversation and sharing your views. The Royal Commission investigated all areas of the nuclear fuel cycle and made a series of recommendations - this included power generation, however at this point in time, it concluded it was not viable under current market conditions however should be considered as a future low-carbon electricity source. The key recommendation we are considering as a community at this point in time is the opportunity to establish a nuclear waste storage and disposal facility. We do hope this helps clarify and thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

HI Greg
Only 1 in 3? That's awesome. Hopefully the majority will push for nuclear power and we need to push for MSRs if we do go for nuclear power.

Laura, China is building 60 nuclear power reactors, and at a rate 4 times faster than all their wind and solar combined.

Well, Grieg, actually they just want to build new nuclear reactors. But they can't. Know why? Chinese students realise there is no future in this and are not studying nuclear engineering, despite the incentives the Chinese government is building into recruiting those students.

If you bothered reading she said she was the victim of a small radioactive leak.

No Mike, China really is building the reactors. Facts here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx

Sarah, nuclear power and waste does not cause the air pollution problems you were subjected to as a child. In fact, nuclear provides the ability to replace dirty coal plants which were the most likely cause of your ailments. This is exactly what China is doing now by building 60 new reactors.

Hello Sarah, we appreciate you taking the time to write and share your story. This is something which all South Australians need to consider as a community and come to an informed decision on. One point to clarify from your post, is around a site - it's important to note that no site has been identified as part of the Royal Commission process; this would only come down the track if the Government chose to investigate any next steps (based on social consent to do so). Further, any proposed site would be on Australian land as a geological disposal facility (GDF) rather than in the ocean. We hope this information assists.

Mr educated Tony. As most of the world will be involved with uranium don't you think that moving into the future means being "a clean green state". Clean seas clean food, wine and the like. Or is it your educated view that you would rather being part of the state known as the nuclear dump state?

Tony this Panacea you speak of sounds awe inspiring but what will happen when the highly educated individuals such as your good self wake up to the fact that these toxic resources are finite and will run out leaving the world and its inhabitants with a toxic legacy lasting hundreds of thousands of years, yes Tony it's time the people make a stand and stop listening to the BS Propoganda put out by the Nuclear Power Industry and the highly paid Lobbyists acting on behalf of these corrupt corporations and Demand a clean green future for all humanity.

@Tony I don't think that wind and solar are a step back into the stone age. The answer here is not to be forced into two different arguing sides, that's what everyone else wants.

@Chris and @Tom Green energy is going to be the best step humanity can take, however to take that step we do need nuclear energy to get the ball rolling. We need huge reserves of power to be able to step up our research into green energy. How about you stop following the fear-mongering propaganda of green groups and actually research some of this stuff yourself.

Keep your head up Tony. Soon they will understand about MSRs.
Agree with you too Joel but don't forget MSRs are green energy.

Christopher Huckel, there are enough known terrestrial reserves of uranium and thorium to last the world at least 5000 years, with FBRs "burning" the transuranic waste, leaving only a small amount of short lived waste isotopes. With advances in extraction technology, e.g. from seawater and deeper terrestrial and seabed deposits, there may be 100,000 years or more of nuclear fuels on Earth. In the given timeframe, it is very likely a new a better energy source will be discovered, e.g. fusion energy. The argument that we need to go to renewables because nuclear fuels are finite is a false argument.

Further it is irrelevant to this discussion, because it is about how to deal with existing waste, which will not suddenly go away in the very unlikely case that the world stops using nuclear power.

Hi Franklin, you can certainly let the Government know your views by filling out the feedback form which you will find a link to on the homepage here on our website. Thanks for sharing your views.

Rosanna, Finland and Sweden are already building waste management facilities, and they have very smart geologists and engineers who ARE able to envisage solutions that last 1000s of years. We have smart people too, and we can do it just as well.

That's right Greig. And they started doing it nearly 40 years ago, and they won't be finished building that facility (which is located 5 kms underground - yes, 5 kms!, not just in hi-tech barrels on the ground!). The completion of their single storage facility won't even be completed for another 30-40 years. If we have smart people, where the hell are they? Interested in how the Onkalo project is going? watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wke01P0rz2Q

Hi Rosanna, these are valid points which we need to discuss and understand as a community and we thank you for raising them. The Royal Commission found that after 60 years of research and development, there is a global consensus that a geological disposal facility is the most effective way to store and dispose of used fuel and intermediate level waste. Furthermore, the Commission found there has been extensive research, development and testing around the storage canisters to ensure there is no threat to humans, animals or the environment when permanently stored underground. I would encourage you to have a read of our fact sheet about GDFs if you're interested - it has some useful information which may address a few concerns. You can access it here (copy and paste): http://bit.ly/2edfSL1

Hi Tony, the Commission made the recommendation that any further nuclear activity in South Australia would need to have a structure regulatory framework in place, overseen by an independent regulator at all stages of the development and operation of a facility. You can find out more about regulation here (copy and paste): http://bit.ly/2eahs5y

My sentiments exactly

Hi Martin, thank you for outlining your concerns. The Royal Commission heard from 132 expert witnesses, including 41 international experts, over 37 sitting days to analyse the benefits and risks of increasing South Australia's nuclear activity. This ensured a broad cross-section of expert evidence to provide a factual base for South Australians to consider and discuss.

In regards to your point about our state's clean green image, you raise a good point and something which other South Australians have discussed. 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. It’s also worth noting SA is already involved in uranium and other mining, and heavy industry without unduly damaging our clean, green image.

Can you guarantee with 100% certainty that the next time you drive your car you will not be killed?

Obviously the answer is no, since we know cars kill over 1 million people each year around the world. So why do you not wish for automobiles to be banned, not only in SA but globally? Having cars seems like a huge gamble to me.

We are putting all our money, our lives and our children's lives on the table. Are you ready?

Hi Greig,
The difference to your car analogy is that radiation and its effects can last for hundreds, even thousands of years. One accident/problem/leakage can affect many generations. This is not true for car crashes.
From Carolyn Wild (not Adrian)

adrian, death is death. You seem to be irrationally afraid of radiation, and unaware that you are already living in a sea of radiation which does not harm you because your body is evolved to tolerate it. On the other hand, your body has not evolved to withstand the trauma of a major car accident.

There is that risk - remember Macbeth:
" I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
Yes - the nuclear lobby wants exactly that - to get South Australia so committed to the project that SA will have to go on with, no matter how ruinous the cost.
There is also the potential for South Australia to receive canisters of high level waste, but then the project could go pear shaped, - the state left with "Stranded Wastes" (worse than Stranded Assets), - meanwhile the overseas companies could go quietly bankrupt, and avoid further payment.
Remember - the nuclear lobby's focus is on persuading South Asian countries to go nuclear. (It's irrelevant to them, if South Australia goes broke)

Lachlan: "Australia would become another wasteland." ??? Really?

I think you will find there are some pretty smart people running this program who can demonstrate that it will make money for SA. I mean that's why they want to do it, not out of some mean-spirited desire to turn Australia into a wasteland.

I think you will find that there are some pretty rich people running this program who can demonstrate that it will make them a lot of money. I think that's why they want to do it not some great desire to save our state from its financial woes.

Tony, I think you will find that you are wrong about your conspiracy theory. This program is not about a few people making a lot of money, it is a state government based program.

Greig, we don't live in a communist system, that's not the way things work here. Constructing the world's largest nuclear dump will be subcontracted out. Whoever is involved in building it will get paid. Whoever supplies the concrete etc. will make a fortune. They will get paid regardless if it is used or abandoned. They will have no responsibility if there is a leak or if a truck or ship has an accident. That would be us paying for the cleanup. If you think that is a conspiracy theory then you seem naive to the workings of capitalism and modern politics. The only way you I or any SA citizen will benefit from this is if we buy shares in these companies and move to NZ.

Well said.

Marisol, nuclear power for electricity is a reality, it is not going away. In fact, it is going to be the mainstay for future reliable low emissions electricity production. China is building 100 reactors, many more are being built in Europe and Asia. So we have 50 years of waste to manage, and more coming. Fact. So why don't we get involved in solving the waste management problem to protect future generations. True environmentalism does not bury its head in the sand, it gets on with solving the problem.

...and you expect this incompetent government to be the driving force for this?

Hi Marisol, we thank you for taking the time to share your concerns, which are certainly all key considerations as related to nuclear activity.

We take your point about the solution to nuclear waste - the Royal Commission found that a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) is viewed by expert scientists and governments around the world as the best available solution for managing used nuclear fuel over the long term. There are GDF programs in development, or facilities scheduled to begin operation in the next few years, in Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, to which the Commission drew on research and key learnings from during the process.

It is important to differentiate with regards to a nuclear accident at a reactor, and that at a waste storage facility as we're discussing here. The Royal Commission report states on page 164 that "A major nuclear accident resulting in the widespread dispersal of radioactive material would have profound regional impacts. However, such catastrophic consequences are conceivable only in the event of a serious accident at a nuclear power plant. With respect to managing radioactive waste in a highly engineered and specifically designed storage and disposal facility, the risks and potential consequences of an accident are different and lower."

"Such catastrophic consequences are conceivable only in the event of a serious accident at a nuclear plant"
Interesting that the writer thinks that they are conceivable, if only at a nuclear plant - but apparently still thinks that the nuclear industry is worth the risk, seeing that the whole push for new nuclear is in South Asia, where they still have the choice to be nuclear-free.
This writer, and the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission both seem unaware of the growing danger of a terrorist attack on either a nuclear waste facility, or, more likely, on the transport to the facility , whether it be by air, sea or land. That ever more likely possibility would indeed result in the widespread dispersal of radioactive material .

Your more likely to die falling on your tooth brush than by terrorists attack, nuclear waste is not a nuclear bomb.

I bet no one expected 911 or the Japan nuclear plant disaster, yet it happened. Nuclear waste not your house hold garbage. Imagine breathing in small invisible particles that kill u in unknown ways, they are every where in the air, nothing can stop it.

Easy to hide shows a persons true character when they lack the backbone to put their name out there yes the courage you must have to denigrate those that at least had the courage to put their name on their comment unlike the stuff I'm scraping off my shoe.

Steven McColl by some other name. I guess his new alias makes him more comfortable referring to Ben Duffield as Ben Dufferfield. Grow up Steven.

Well somebody had to take the time to point out that Ben doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Obviously the fan club (Chris and Peter) aren't interested in anything but ad hom responses.

Isn't it ironic that Jay W is today defending the building of diesel submarines in preference to nuclear powered submarines, given how far down the road he has pushed his cause for 'SA the Nuclear State'.
You wonder why so many of us are cynical?