Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Who will benefit from nuclear waste import scheme – international nuclear companies!

 The Australia Institute’s chief economist, Richard Denniss, told a public meeting in Adelaide on Mar. 22 that the economic modeling used by the Royal Commission did not stack up and painted an unrealistic picture of the benefits, costs and risks. The assumed price was higher than anyone was paying, and it assumed South Australia would have a global monopoly.

    “The price assumptions are optimistic. But the main problem is that it is based on above-ground storage for 20 years. If you had to build the hole (for underground storage) first, you’d never make it add up,” Denniss said on Adelaide radio station FIVEaa.

     Denniss said the institute’s analysis showed the primary beneficiaries of a waste dump in South Australia would be international nuclear power companies.

Adelaide ponders value of nuclear waste dump, Nikkei Asian Review , 31 Mar 16 GEOFF HISCOCK, SYDNEY — South Australia’s dark history as a nuclear test site more than half a century ago is coming to the fore again as its citizens ponder the value of becoming an international dump for high-level nuclear waste…….

Those opposing the dump include environmental organizations, traditional Aboriginal custodians of the land and the Australian Greens political party, with Greens Senator Robert Simms deriding the dump’s economics as “pure fantasy.”…….

Woomera contamination

Nuclear involvement in this part of Australia already has negative associations. Between 1953 and 1963, South Australia was the location for a series of British nuclear bomb tests, first at Emu Field and then at Maralinga, 800km northwest of the state capital Adelaide, in the vast military testing zone known as the Woomera Prohibited Area.

The Maralinga site was contaminated by radioactive material, and although clean-up work began in 1967, it was not completed until 2000. The traditional Aboriginal custodians of the land, the Maralinga Tjarutja people, were paid compensation for the damage in 1994. Some British and Australian service personnel involved in the tests and some Aboriginal inhabitants developed radiation-related illnesses.

Since 2010, Australian defense personnel involved in the tests have been eligible for compensation and healthcare benefits related to their medical conditions, but so far, only a handful of the 1,800 Australian veterans still alive have received compensation……

Once Commissioner Scarce delivers his final report on May 6, the state government will begin a process of extensive community engagement that will run into August. After that, Weatherill and his colleagues in cabinet will prepare a case to take to state parliament by the end of the year. Any move to set up a nuclear waste facility would require new legislation…….

In his interim report, Scarce said the commission’s key finding was that most aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle were economically unviable in South Australia for the next 10 to 20 years, apart from the storage and disposal of high-level waste from around the world.

He said such a facility would be “commercially viable” and the “highly profitable” storage component could be operational in the late 2020s.
According to an economic model prepared for the Royal Commission by Melbourne-based consultants Jacobs MCM, total project revenues would be A$257 billion, based on managing 138,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from power stations (about 13% of the projected global total) over its lifespan, and 390,000 cubic meters of intermediate waste.

Jacobs MCM said “significant revenues” could commence 10 years from a decision to launch detailed investigations.

‘Pure fantasy’

Robert Simms, Australian Greens senator for South Australia, described the cash windfall depicted in the commission’s interim report as “pure fantasy.” He said it failed to adequately consider that making South Australia “the world’s largest nuclear waste dump would be a costly and dangerous burden for future generations.” He also said South Australia should be embracing renewable energy rather than getting further involved in a nuclear industry that “flatlined last century.”

A poll of 1,077 South Australian residents conducted in March for the left-leaning think tank The Australia Institute found 37% of voters supported an international nuclear waste dump, while 48.5% were opposed and 14% were undecided.

The institute’s chief economist, Richard Denniss, told a public meeting in Adelaide on Mar. 22 that the economic modeling used by the Royal Commission did not stack up and painted an unrealistic picture of the benefits, costs and risks. The assumed price was higher than anyone was paying, and it assumed South Australia would have a global monopoly.

“The price assumptions are optimistic. But the main problem is that it is based on above-ground storage for 20 years. If you had to build the hole (for underground storage) first, you’d never make it add up,” Denniss said on Adelaide radio station FIVEaa.

Denniss said the institute’s analysis showed the primary beneficiaries of a waste dump in South Australia would be international nuclear power companies.

April 1, 2016 - Posted by | General News

1 Comment »

  1. […] Who will benefit from nuclear waste import scheme – international nuclear companies! […]

    Like

    Pingback by 2 April Nuclear, climate, coal and oil news | Nuclear Australia | April 2, 2016 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: