Antinuclear

The commission said nuclear power plants were “very complex systems designed and operated by humans, who can make mistakes”.

The commission considered the three major international nuclear accidents – Fukushima Daiichi in Japan in 2011, Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986 and Three Mile Island in the US in 1979. It said each accident had been thoroughly investigated, leading to lessons which have been applied to enhance safety.

Commissioner Kevin Scarce said safety was paramount but successful risk management was not beyond SA’s capability. “We believe with the new technology developed since Fukushima, with appropriate regulatory oversight, that nuclear power should not be automatically ignored as a future generation technology,” he said.

In addition to receiving submissions and hearing from expert witnesses, the royal commission contracted two professional reports into the viability of nuclear power in SA.

Estimates of costs and a possible business case were studied by consultants WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff.Separately DGA Consulting/Carisway looked at how nuclear power plant in SA could be linked in with the national electricity market which is supplied by both fossil fuel and renewable sources.

The reports found demand in SA’s electricity market was in decline which would work against nuclear power……

The commission heard evidence about Generation IV reactors which use a different cooling mechanism and are able to take nuclear waste from earlier generation reactors……

The PRISM – or Power Reactor Innovative Small Module – employs the latest technology but is still at an experimental phase.

Because this technology was currently unproven, the commission saw it as a future possibility and was not in favour of SA being the testbed or a first of a kind technology.  http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/royal-commission-in-to-nuclear-power-for-sa-says-its-not-commercially-viable-for-now/news-story/41b42ca6e2127a3f285005f1e3f61315