South Australia « Antinuclear

South Australia is too good to waste.

Today’s Royal Commission ‘Tentative Findings’ report clearly states that nuclear power will not be economically viable. It also says that uranium conversion, uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing are not economically viable. The state’s peak environmental body Conservation Council SA welcomes these findings.

However the report says that South Australia should consider importing international nuclear waste.

“We have had the Royal Commission, now any nuclear waste dump needs South Australia’s permission”, says Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins.

“This is a decision for all South Australians. The issue of genuine acceptance and consent is absolutely critical.

“If we pursue a nuclear waste dump path, we are saying “the best we can do is accept the worst the world has got”. I honestly think we can do better than that.”

An opinion poll commissioned by The Advertiser last year found that less than one in six (15.7%) South Australians support a nuclear waste dump in SA.*

“Now comes the hard part. We’ve had a technocratic, distant process so far – now it turns to real people, real places and real values,” says Mr Wilkins.

“The Royal Commission presents an optimistic view of potential profits from offering Australia as the world’s nuclear waste dump. The Commission acknowledges that nuclear waste needs to be isolated from the environment for “many hundreds of thousands of years” yet there is no attempt to cost the management of waste over those timeframes.

“If there’s one thing we know, the nuclear industry is expert at overstating the benefits and radically understating the costs and risks.

“Ultimately, we think it’s essential that all current and future South Australians should have the freedom to choose. Saying yes to nuclear makes that choice forever, there is no going back.”

February 15, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Greens: Nuclear Royal Commission findings: It’s all about the dump!

The tentative findings of the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, released this morning tell us what we already know, according to Greens SA Parliamentary Leader, Mark Parnell MLC.

As predicted when the Royal Commission was established – this process is all about softening South Australians up to be the World’s nuclear waste dump.

We’ve known for years that the uranium reprocessing market is “uncertain” and that there is “no opportunity for commercial development” [Royal Commission quotes]. We’ve also known for decades that nuclear power for SA is “not commercially viable … in the foreseeable future” [Royal Commission quotes].

“The outcome of the Royal Commission isn’t at all surprising. The Greens knew that the most likely result of this process was to support South Australia becoming the World’s nuclear waste dump.

However, the Royal Commission’s tentative findings on the nuclear waste dump are based on dubious economics, heroic assumptions and a big dose of guess work. The Commission has identified a problem that lasts hundreds of thousands of years and proposed a solution with income that lasts just a few decades, but with costs lasting virtually forever. If anything goes wrong in the future – we’re on our own.

“The Greens are calling on the Weatherill Labor Government to protect our State’s reputation and not leave our descendants to deal with a toxic future as their legacy.

Previous State Labor Premier Mike Rann fought off a Liberal plan for a national nuclear waste dump in South Australia last decade. The current proposals are far more sinister and dangerous because they involve South Australia taking the most dangerous radioactive waste on the planet.

South Australians will now need to ask themselves and their politicians: “Is this the best future that we can aspire to?”

February 15, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Anna Skarbek tells #NuclearCommissionSAust hearing about the opportunities for renewable energy

MR JACOBI: Ms Skarbek is the chief executive officer and executive director of Climate Works Australia since its inception in 2009 and she’s been leading the organisations working in analysing emissions reductions opportunities and partnering with business and government in unblocking barriers to their implementation. She’s also a director of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a trustee of the Sustainable Melbourne Fund, a member of the Australian Government’s Energy White Paper Reference Panel, and the Grattan Institute Energy Program Reference Panel. …..

She’s principally to give evidence today in relation to a report published by Climate Works Australia in September 2014 entitled Pathways to Decarbonisation in 2005, How Australia Can Prosper in a Low Carbon World…….

Anna Skarbek : Extract of evidence given at Nuclear Royal Commission Hearing 9 Sept 15 “…Based on today’s estimates, the real question is: what are the technologies that you need in the 2040s, after we’ve had the 2030s, where renewables have become the majority share? What we find is that there’s still a little bit of coal in the system that you see. It’s begun to retire by 2030, but it’s not all gone. So then the question is: what replaces that baseload? What we find is that renewables can do more than half of the system, based on, if you like, current technologies and management. So demand management, weather forecasting, allows the intermittent sources of electricity to be managed quite successfully for over half, up to around two‑thirds, of the electricity grid…….

it was striking to us in doing this work how blessed Australia is for options in terms of transitioning to a low carbon economy.

We’ve modelled these three scenarios because we could be a 100 per cent renewable powered economy if we wanted to be……..

I see from how rapidly renewable energy technology costs have fallen that they often outperform what the estimate of future costs on paper today says. So it’s possible that renewable costs could fall further than what we have published in this report because past evidence has suggested that’s certainly been the case historically. In that case, renewables would become more competitive than the nuclear and the CCS options that we’ve looked at, unless those technologies also fell further…..”http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/videos/climate-change-energy-policy-992015-11am/

February 15, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment

Kevin Scarce – nuclear power not viable now, but will be later?

Royal Commission in to nuclear power for SA says it’s not commercially viable for now The Advertiser 15 Feb 16 Business Editor Christopher Russell NUCLEAR power for

electricity in South Australia is not commercially viable at the moment, the royal commission says…….“It would be wise to plan now to ensure that nuclear power would be available should it be required.”…….

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

It warns that there can be no guarantee there will never be an accident but goes on to say “the risk of nuclear accident should not of itself preclude consideration of nuclear power as a future electricity generation option”.

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

February 15, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia | Leave a comment

BENEFITS OF SOLAR FAR OUTWEIGH THE RISKS OF NUCLEAR

Solar Citizens calls on the South Australian Government to harness the sun to generate low-cost clean energy and kick-start jobs and economic growth rather than becoming a dumping ground for an expensive, toxic nuclear waste.

The findings come as new polling released today shows a majority of voters are more likely to give their vote in the upcoming election to a party supporting ambitious goals and innovation for solar”[1]

The preliminary findings of a Royal Commission into nuclear claim that

An expansion of uranium mining is “not the most significant opportunity” to develop South Australia’s economy
“It would not be commercially viable to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant in South Australia in the foreseeable future.”
Storage and disposal of nuclear fuel waste is “likely” to deliver economic benefits to the State.

“We welcome the Commission’s findings which shows that nuclear mining and power generation is not the solution for South Australia”, said Claire O’Rourke, National Director of Solar Citizens.

“The best way the South Australian Government can support clean energy is supporting households in making the transition to solar energy and reducing people’s power bills. The South Australian Government is leading other states with a target of 50% renewable energy by 2025 and has commissioned research which shows it can get to 100% renewable energy as part of its target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 ”

“One in four households in South Australia now has rooftop solar and the power they generate from the sun supplies about five per cent of the state’s energy demand.

“These 190,000 South Australian solar homes are only the beginning of the global solar boom, as affordable, reliable home battery storage places lowering the cost of power bills in reach for the majority of households.

“It is important that the State Government makes sure it adopts policies that encourage further investment in renewables, and the jobs this will create.

“The state’s abundant solar resources have already caught the attention of US solar thermal giant SolarReserve, which in November made a bid to build Australia’s first-ever solar thermal plant with storage in Port Augusta. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9kNVP3oyB-cQ2NQbnROWVlrUjIxbW1TaUhxTlpKZlNkNHNB/view?usp=sharing

February 15, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | solar, South Australia | Leave a comment

South Australian premier out on a limb, as national Labor dithers about nuclear policy

Royal commission tipped to back radioactive dump REBECCA PUDDY, The Australian, Monday 15 February Australia could be a step closer to establishing a nuclear industry today when the interim findings of South Australia’s nuclear royal commission are handed down amid an increasingly favourable political landscape…… it is widely tipped to recommend establishing a high-level radioactive waste dump as a money spinner for the struggling state economy.

The findings are also likely to leave open the option of building a nuclear power reactor in the southern state………..

While Premier Jay Weatherill has committed to responding to the report before the end of the year, his response could be constrained by his party’s national platform. In July it was revealed that Labor had shelved a move to end the party’s opposition to nuclear energy through amending its national platform, which outlines the party’s opposition to nuclear energy.

Labor’s resources spokesman Gary Gray, who was leading the campaign to change Labor’s position, said at the time that the draft proposal to soften the party’s stance on nuclear energy had been set aside while the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was under way.

The release of the commission’s findings will be accompanied by four technical documents commissioned by Rear Admiral Scarce, which will outline the costs and economic benefits of engaging in the nuclear fuel cycle.

Evidence provided to the commission over the course of its 34 sitting days included a business case that estimated an Australian nuclear reactor would cost between $3 billion and $6bn to build, with operations starting in 2030.

The findings will be released at 11am, with the first of a series of public meetings on the issue scheduled for tonight at the Adelaide Town Hall.

Environmental campaigner David Noonan said anti-nuclear activists would be present at the meeting but would be “deliberately polite”, to ensure the public’s focus stayed on the issue. He said neither of the major parties would advocate for a change in direction with nuclear power or storage until after the federal election, leaving the South Australian Labor government out on a limb.

“There’s a lot of caution there in the political landscape right now,” Mr Noonan said. “Josh Frydenberg will try to get his low-level radioactive waste site over the line before he moves on anything else.”

February 15, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Dr Jim Green predicts that Nuclear Commission report will be a “foregone conclusion”

Friends of the Earth anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green said the contents of today’s findings were a “foregone conclusion” accusing the commission of bias.

“We expect that [the findings] will be mostly interested in the idea of making money out of importing high-level nuclear waste,” he said.

Professor Ian Lowe: – “if the royal commission sticks to the facts and what’s proven, I think they’ll inevitably conclude there’s not a strong case for South Australia getting heavily involved in the nuclear industry,”

Nuclear dump tipped for South Australia amid ‘desperate’ times, ABC News 15 Feb 16
South Australia’s nuclear royal commission is set to release its tentative findings this morning, with experts from both sides of the debate predicting an outcome in favour of a nuclear dump………The issue has long stirred emotions in South Australia, with former premier Mike Rann and former prime minister John Howard at odds over a nuclear waste dump at Woomera for six years before the proposal was ultimately scrapped in 2004.

Current Premier Jay Weatherill is more receptive to the idea and set up the royal commission, saying there were economic opportunities in the mining, enrichment, energy and storage phases of the fuel cycle.

Flinders University associate professor of politics Haydon Manning said the Premier was looking for political gains as the state struggled with unemployment.

“If you understand the mood of South Australia, there is a degree of desperation,” Mr Manning said…….. Continue reading →

February 15, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment

Nuclear Royal Commission Special

On February 15 the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission announced its “tentative findings”

And guess what – Surprise Surprise!

After many months of such IMPORTANT pro nuclear persons getting paid large amounts of money to trip around the world, getting expert advice from the likes of France’s near bankrupt AREVA, and the crooked Canadian nuclear hierarchy – they came out with the conclusion that they had already decided upon at the beginning:

AUSTRALIA SHOULD BECOME THE WORLD’S RADIOACTIVE TRASH TOILET!

The subservient media and corporate controlled governments of the rest of Australia have just shut up about this for nearly a whole year, in the pretense that “It’s only a South Australian matter”. They left it to the likes of the nuclear lobby’s puppet “The Adelaide Advertiser” to give information on this purely State matter.

Is it just a State matter? Or is Australia as a whole interested in the Scarce plan for this nation to become the only place in the world to invite in the global nuclear industry’s radioactive poo?

And the only nation foolish enough to think that this will make us prosperous!

February 15, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina reviews, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | 1 Comment

South Australian nuclear waste import plan simply cannot succeed

No-one else will line up to take advantage of this “once in a lifetime opportunity”, because the opportunity does not exist. The plan simply cannot succeed.

The impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work. THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE Dan Gilchrist February 2016

“……NO GOOD OUTCOME The free energy utopia depends on two new, as yet unproven technologies: PRISM reactors, and cheap borehole disposal. The Edwards plan appears to rely on these technologies not only being successfully developed, but remaining entirely in Australian hands. Competition is certainly not addressed in the plan.

It would be more realistic to assume that other countries would act on the same opportunities, if indeed they arose.

To implement the Edwards plan, Australia would need to spend around $10 billion to set up temporary storage, a reprocessing plant, and a pair of PRISMs. We would also need to import and store spent fuel.

Furthermore, the importation of spent fuel would likely require a dedicated port and a fleet of specialised ships, and this is not costed in the plan.

The plan calls for spent fuel to begin to be imported and loaded into the dry-cask facility six years after the commencement of construction. It plans for the first PRISMs to be completed four years later. We could reasonably expect to have good data on the costs and methods of borehole storage well within this ten-year timeframe – as would any potential customers.

Having spent $10 billion (not including the cost of shipping or a new port) and ten years, and with several thousand tonnes of spent fuel in storage,42 there are, broadly speaking, two foreseeable outcomes:

1. If borehole and PRISM technologies, having been piloted commercially by Australia, are found to be as cheap and effective as hoped, other countries will have the opportunity to either use them themselves, or undercut our vast profits. It is not realistic to believe that Australia would continue to be paid five to ten times the cost of permanent storage alone. 43 Even if the hoped-for customers were nations that couldn’t use borehole or PRISM technology, a number of other countries could.

2. If either technology is found to be too expensive for commercial deployment, or to have unforeseen safety problems, Australia will have locked itself into an expensive method of electricity generation with perhaps no longterm solution for the acquired waste.

In short: either the technology works and we face stiff competition, both from other countries and the low costs of the technologies themselves – in which case the numbers in the plan are completely wrong; or the technology doesn’t work as expected – in which case the numbers in the plan are completely wrong.

And in either case, the plan has still failed to cost a permanent solution for 56,000 tons of high-level waste – over 90 percent of the material taken in. The profits from the scheme would be spent in the early decades to subsidise the reactors and lower taxes, leaving future generations with a massive problem, and no plan or money left to deal with it.

There is no good outcome here.

Even if the technology succeeds, the business plan is fatally flawed. It is, in effect, a self-defeating plan. If it works, our customer base and commodity price dries up, killed by the very technologies we would have piloted at our own risk and at great expense.

Given the wildly optimistic price for waste modelled by the mid-scenario, not to mention the 56,000 tonnes of waste left over with no costed solution, and with all the uncertainties in developing the new technologies required, the simple conclusion is that this plan is simply all risk with no reward. No-one else will line up to take advantage of this “once in a lifetime opportunity”, because the opportunity does not exist. The plan simply cannot succeed. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/496/attachments/original/1455085726/P222_Nuclear_waste_impossible_dream_FINAL.pdf?1455085726

February 13, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, reference, South Australia, Submissions to Royal Commission S.A., wastes | 7 Comments

Exploding Senator Edward’s plan for nuclear waste importing

“……..Edward’s plan seems like an excellent deal for South Australia. Who would say no to jobs and free electricity and billions in reduced taxes? But the most cursory scrutiny exposes some serious flaws.

WASTE

The plan is to build a dry-cask storage facility, capable of securing spent fuel on the surface for 100 years. South Australia would be paid to take 60,000 tonnes over a 20 year period.

There would then be a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, designed to reprocess 100 tonnes of this waste per year. The economic value of this proposition is highly speculative as 100 tonnes per year is far in excess of Australia’s likely needs. However, if our pioneering development of PRISM reactors proved the technology and made it affordable, then other countries might also build PRISMs, which could use the output of the processing plant. 14

However, even assuming Australia finds a use or a buyer for the entire output of the reprocessing plant, over the 40 year life span of the facility South Australia would process just 4,000 tonnes of the imported waste.

What happens to the other 56,000 tonnes of nuclear waste?

It would remain in temporary storage. There is no long term solution costed or even mentioned in Edwards’ plan. It is never discussed again.

It must be kept in mind this would be waste another country paid Australia to take, specifically because paying us was better than developing a permanent solution of their own. As perhaps may be expected, if one country pays another to take on a massive problem, and the second country solves less than 10 percent of that problem, it could make a large short term profit. But in 100 years when the dry cask system reached the end of its rated lifespan, future generations of South Australians would be left to deal with 56,000 tonnes of high-level waste, with no money left, and no plan.

If the plan was funded only by taking the 4,000 tonnes of spent fuel it actually used, then the result would be a spectacular financial loss.15

The Edwards plan makes the point that Australia would not be taking waste, but only ‘spent fuel’. It says: “This submission is not … proposing the simple establishment of waste management or disposal services or the importation of radioactive wastes in any sense.”

This statement is justified in the plan by the definition of radioactive waste as “…waste materials which contain radioactive substances for which no further use is envisaged.”

As long as we intend to use that spent fuel, it is not, strictly speaking, waste. However, the plan provides no use for over 90 percent of the material to be accepted. It would be, in the truest sense of the word, waste. And the proposal simply ignores that waste. If there is a future use envisaged for it, it is not mentioned in the plan, nor has it been costed.

The plan earns all of its money in the first few decades, spending it all on free electricity, tax reductions and other projects over 50 years.16 The remaining 56,000 tonnes is left to future generations to worry about, with no money left to deal with it.

This is a plan unlikely to be embraced by the Australian public in general, or South Australians in particular………. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/496/attachments/original/1455085726/P222_Nuclear_waste_impossible_dream_FINAL.pdf?1455085726

February 13, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, reference, South Australia, Submissions to Royal Commission S.A., wastes | Leave a comment

The massive holes in Senator Edward’s arguments for “new nuclear” technology for South Australia

not a single PRISM [ (Power Reactor Innovative Small Module] has actually been built…. the commercial viability of these technologies is unproven

Crucially, under the plan, Australia would have been taking spent fuel for 4 years before the first PRISM came online, assuming the reactors were built on time.

if borehole technology works as intended, and at the prices hoped for, why would any country pay another to take their waste for $1,370,000 a tonne, when a solution exists that only costs $216,000 a tonne, less than one sixth of the price?

“……NEW TECHNOLOGY This comprehensively researched submission asserts that a transformative opportunity is to be found in pairing established, mature practices with cuspof-commercialisation technologies to provide an innovative model of service to the global community. (emphasis added) Edwards’ submission to the Royal Commission

Two elements of the plan – transport of waste, and temporary storage in the dry cask facility – are indeed mature. There is a high degree of certainty that these technologies will perform as expected, for the prices expected.

It should be noted, however, that the price estimates used in the Edwards plan for the dry cask storage facility draw on estimates for an internal US facility to be serviced by rail.17 No consideration has been given to the cost of shipping the material from overseas.

Around a dozen ship loads a year would be needed to import spent fuel at the rate called for in the plan.18 It is likely that a dedicated port would also need to be constructed. The 1999 Pangea plan, which proposed a similar construction of a commercial waste repository in Australia, made allowances for “…international transport in a fleet of special purpose ships to a dedicated port in Australia”. 19

Needless to say, building and operating highly specialised ships, or paying others to do so, would not be free. Building and operating a dedicated port would not be free. Yet none of these activities are costed in the plan.

Furthermore, beyond the known elements of transport and temporary storage, the principle technologies depended on – PRISM reactors and borehole disposal – are precisely those which are glossed over as being on the “cusp of commercialisation”.

To put it another way: the commercial viability of these technologies is unproven.

PRISM [Power Reactor Innovative Small Module]The PRISM reactor is based on technology piloted in the US, up until the program was cancelled in 1994. 20 It offers existing nuclear-power nations what appears to be a tremendous deal: turn those massive stockpiles of waste into fuel, and reduce the long-term waste problem from one of millennia to one of mere centuries. It promises to be cheap, too, with the small modular design allowing mass production.

Despite this promise, not a single PRISM reactor has actually been built. Officials at the South Korean Ministry of Science have said that they hope to have advanced reactors – if not the PRISM then something very similar – up and running by 2040.21 The Generation IV International Forum expects the first fourth generation reactors – of which the PRISM is one example – to be commercially deployed in the 2030’s.2

After decades spent developing the technology in the United States, a US Department of Energy report dismissed the use of Advanced Disposition Reactors (ADR), a class which includes the PRISM-type integral fast reactor concept, as a way of drawing down on excess plutonium stocks. It compares it unfavourably to the existing – and expensive – mixed oxide (MOX) method of recycling nuclear fuel.

The ADR option involves a capital investment similar in magnitude to the [MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility] but with all of the risks associated with first of-a kind new reactor construction (e.g., liquid metal fast reactor), and this complex nuclear facility construction has not even been proposed yet for a Critical Decision …. Choosing the ADR option would be akin to choosing to do the MOX approach all over again, but without a directly relevant and easily accessible reference facility/operation (such as exists for MOX in France) to provide a leg up on experience and design.23

Nevertheless, the Edwards plan hopes to have a pair of PRISMs built in 10 years.

Crucially, under the plan, Australia would have been taking spent fuel for 4 years before the first PRISM came online, assuming the reactors were built on time.

The risk is that these integral fast reactors might turn out to be more expensive than anticipated and prove to be uneconomical. This could leave South Australia with expensive electricity and no other plan to deal with any of the spent fuel acquired to fund the reactors in the first place.

For countries that have no long-term solution for their existing waste stockpiles, the business case for constructing a PRISM reactor is much clearer: even if the facility turns out to be uneconomical, it will nevertheless be able to process some spent fuel, thus reducing waste stockpiles. This added benefit makes the financial risk more worthwhile for such countries

Australia, on the other hand, doesn’t have an existing stockpile of high-level nuclear waste. The Edwards plan would see Australia acquire that problem in the hopes of solving it with technology never before deployed on a commercial scale. We would be buying off the plan, with many billions of dollars at stake, in the hopes that we, with little experience and minimal nuclear infrastructure, could solve a problem which has vexed far more experienced nations for decades.

By the time the first PRISM is due to come online it will be too late to turn back, no matter what unexpected problems may be encountered. Australia would have acquired thousands of tonnes of spent fuel with no other planned use.

Counting on the development of other PRISM reactors around the world is another gamble. The proposed reprocessing plant accounts for all of the 4,000 tonne reduction in waste over the life of the plan. Australia will have no use for most of this material – the rest must be used by other PRISMs. If PRISMs are not widely adopted, Australia will have no takers. This could leave Australia with even more than 56,000 tonnes of waste, with no planned or costed solution.

Borehole disposal

The second element of the plan is the long-term disposal of waste from the PRISM reactors in boreholes. However this technology is still being tested.

According to an article in the journal Science, bore-hole technology has significant issues to overcome.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent panel that advises [the United States Department of Energy] DOE, notes a litany of potential problems: No one has drilled holes this big 5 kilometers into solid rock. If a hole isn’t smooth and straight, a liner could be hard to install, and waste containers could get stuck. It’s tricky to see flaws like fractures in rock 5 kilometers down. Once waste is buried, it would be hard to get it back (an option federal regulations now require). And methods for plugging the holes haven’t been sufficiently tested.

However, if estimates used by the Edwards plan are correct, and boreholes can be made to work as hoped, it would allow high-level nuclear waste to be disposed of for only $216,000 per tonne. The Edwards plan reduces this further for Australia, quoting only $138,000 a tonne, on the understanding that our own waste would be comparatively low level output from a PRISM – disregarding, as discussed above, the 56,000 tonnes left over.

Nevertheless, the figure of $216,000 per tonne is important, because that is the price at which any country with suitable geology could store high level waste. It should be noted that Australia will not have exclusive access to borehole technology. If it is proven to be as effective as hoped there is nothing stopping many other countries from using it.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) notes that borehole siting activities have been initiated in Ghana, the Philippines, Malaysia and Iran.26 A pilot program is underway in the US.27 The range of geologies where boreholes may be effective is vast.

This may have serious implications for Australia’s waste disposal industry, given that other countries could build their own low-cost solution, or offer it to potential customers.

However, if boreholes do not work as hoped, Australia will have no costed solution for the final disposal of high-level waste from its PRISM facilities. Australia would find itself in the very situation other countries had paid it to avoid.

PRICE What are countries willing to pay to have their spent fuel taken care of?

This is an open question, as to date there is no international market in the permanent storage of high-level waste.

A figure of US$1,000,000 (A$1,370,000) per tonne is used by the Edwards plan, but this estimate does not appear to have any rigorous basis.

The Edwards plan gives only one real world example of a similar price: a recent plan by Taiwan to pay US$1,500,000 per tonne to send a small amount of its waste overseas for reprocessing. From this, the report concludes that an estimate of US$1,000,000 is entirely reasonable.

However, the report neglects to mention several important facts about Taiwan’s proposal. First, this spent fuel was to be reprocessed, not disposed of, and most of the material was to be reclaimed as usable fuel. 29 This fuel would not be returned, but would continue to be owned by Taiwan, and be available for sale.30 If they could find a buyer, Taiwan might expect to recoup part or all of their costs by selling the reclaimed fuel to a third party.

Second, the 20 percent of material to be converted into vitrified waste by the process was to be returned to Taiwan – no long-term storage would be part of the deal.

Third, and most importantly, the tender was suspended by the Taiwanese government pending parliamentary budget review.31 This occurred in March 2015, several months before the Edwards plan was submitted to the Royal Commission.

Not only was the Taiwanese government proposing a completely different process to the one proposed by the Edwards plan, they weren’t willing to pay for it anyway. So the use of the Taiwanese case as a baseline example for the price Australia might hope to receive to store waste simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

The plan does briefly mention that the US nuclear power industry has set aside US$400,000 a tonne for waste disposal – to cover research, development and final disposal.32 This much lower figure is disregarded for no apparent reason, making the mid-scenario’s assumption of a price more than double this, at US$1,000,000, seem dubious. Even the pessimistic case considers a price of US$500,000 a tonne, higher than the US savings pool.

As will be discussed in the next section, the question remains: if borehole technology works as intended, and at the prices hoped for, why would any country pay another to take their waste for $1,370,000 a tonne, when a solution exists that only costs $216,000 a tonne, less than one sixth of the price?

If South Australia led the way to prove the viability of the borehole disposal method and took on the risks associated with a first of its kind commercial operation, many other countries should be expected to use the technology for their own waste, or could offer those services to others. This alone makes the idea that other countries would pay $1,370,000 a tonne highly unlikely. ….https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/496/attachments/original/1455085726/P222_Nuclear_waste_impossible_dream_FINAL.pdf?1455085726

February 13, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, reference, South Australia, Submissions to Royal Commission S.A., technology | 2 Comments

Inescapable conclusion – nuclear waste dump plan for South Australia is areal dud

The impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work. The Australia Institute Briefing paper Dan Gilchrist February 2016

“……Conclusion There are no magical solutions in the real world. When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Even setting aside the technological and economic problems of the Edwards plan, its impossibility can be deduced by a simple observation: it only works if no-one else does it. It is a Catch-22. If the plan is a technological success it will open up competition, which would make it an economic failure.

There is also the question of popular will: perhaps Australia’s edge would be in a unique willingness to implement such a plan? However, Australia has historically had a great deal of hostility toward the nuclear industry. If Australians could be convinced to embrace PRISMs and boreholes, surely some countries with an existing nuclear industry – countries which have, therefore, shown a much greater willingness to accept it – would also be willing to implement those solutions.

It makes far more economic sense to pay for your own boreholes, or PRISMs, or reprocessing, than it does to pay up to ten times the cost for Australia to do it for you – you would save on shipping and port costs, at least.

Not every country would or could implement this solution, but it would take just one other nation on earth to provide competition. If the deal really is as attractive as Senator Edwards claims, surely at least one other nation would be tempted to take a share of such a wildly profitable business. Assuming that Australia will somehow maintain a monopoly in technologies it does not own is naïve.

Deploying new technologies is inherently risky. PRISMs and boreholes may turn out to be massive white elephants financially, and leave us with thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste to deal with. But even if these technologies worked, some other countries would surely be in a position to implement them, and at a reduced risk, once Australia had piloted its development.

It is a plan which creates its own competition.

In reality, there is no reason to think any country would pay what the Edwards plan assumes they will. With no mature nuclear power or waste industry, holding no monopoly on the technologies needed, and far from potential markets, there is no reason to think that Australia would have a competitive advantage. There is no reason to think that Australians will accept 56,000 tonnes of waste with no costed long-term solution.

No other country will line up to take advantage of this amazing opportunity, because it does not exist. Sadly, Senator Edwards’ dream is impossible. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/496/attachments/original/1455085726/P222_Nuclear_waste_impossible_dream_FINAL.pdf?1455085726

February 12, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia, wastes | 1 Comment

Australia Institute Analyses Senator Sean Edwards’ Nuclear Plan For South Australia

The impossible dream Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A plan to produce free electricity for South Australia by embracing nuclear waste sounds like a wonderful idea. But it won’t work. The Australia Institute Briefing paper Dan Gilchrist February 2016

Summary

South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was established on 19 March 2015 and is due to report on its findings in May 2016. It is inquiring into the risks and opportunities to the economy, environment and community of the expansion or development of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Perhaps the most prominent plan has been the one championed by South Australian Senator Sean Edwards.1 He claims to be able to bring tremendous economic prosperity to South Australia, with the almost incredible by-product of providing free electricity to the state, and with money left over to reduce state taxes.

The plan involves being paid to take spent fuel from other countries and store it in Australia. The state can then use that old fuel to power a new generation of reactors, producing tiny quantities of easily handled waste. With money earned from taking troublesome radioactive materials off the hands of countries struggling with stocks of nuclear waste, South Australia can fund next-generation reactors.

The plan sounds perfect. The reality is far from it.

The Edwards plan ignores the cost of shipping the waste to Australia, and relies on technology that has never before been deployed commercially. It hopes that unjustified and unrealistic amounts of money will be paid for the disposal of waste.

Furthermore, although the plan includes the acceptance of 60,000 tonnes of waste, only 4,000 tonnes, at most, would be reprocessed for fuel. The remaining 56,000 tonnes would remain in temporary storage, with no funds left for future generations to deal with the problem.

Even if the world fell into line just as Senator Edwards hopes, the plan fails to consider the obvious question: if Australia can generate free electricity from this spent fuel, wouldn’t other countries want to do the same? The plan makes no allowances for competition.

Even if the countries of origin chose not to implement the miraculous technology proposed for South Australia, other countries could compete with Australia to provide this service. A plan predicated on monopoly profits of over 400 percent is, therefore, unrealistic.

The idea that an expanded nuclear industry in Australia will produce thousands of jobs and generate so much money that South Australians will be provided with free electricity is a wonderful dream. But like so many dreams, it is an impossible one.

The first section of this report outlines the key elements of the Edwards plan.

The second section of the report provides a reality check. It shows that the plan fails to deal with over 90% of the imported waste, and then exposes the chief technological and economic risks in the scheme.

The third section will consider a world in which the assumptions contained in the Edwards plan come true, and explores the possibility that other countries might go on to use the same technologies as Australia.

This paper will analyse the mid-scenario modelled in the Edwards plan – that is, 60,000 tonnes of spent fuel to be taken by Australia, with payments received of $1,370,000 per tonne – and follow the convention of using Australian dollars at their 2015 value, except where otherwise noted. Similarly, costings and claims are taken directly from the Edwards paper, except where otherwise noted. ………..

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/496/attachments/original/1455085726/P222_Nuclear_waste_impossible_dream_FINAL.pdf?1455085726

February 12, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia, Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Greens ready for #NuclearCommissionSAust report “all about waste dumping”

“It’s all about the dump”: Greens gear up for nuclear war, IN Daily, 12 Feb 16 The South Australian Greens are preparing for a sustained public relations assault from next week, in the assumption that the Royal Commission into the state’s nuclear fuel cycle will recommend the viability of a nuclear waste dump. The commission, headed by former Governor Kevin Scarce, will detail its “tentative findings” on Monday morning, preceding another round on consultation.

Greens MLC Mark Parnell told InDaily the party had prepared a variety of options for leaflets and online material, with staff “putting out a call to Greens members for volunteers to hand out flyers”.

“What we’re doing is trying to anticipate what the Royal Commission might come up with, so there will be no surprises that the waste dump is front and foremost in our thinking,” Parnell said.

“That’s on the basis that nuclear power is incredibly expensive and slow [so] they might recommend it but I always thought that was less likely. The processing and value-adding stuff – my understanding is economically it doesn’t stack up [and] of all the different things they’re looking at, it keeps coming back to the dump.”

He said insiders he had spoken to insist “it’s all about the dump”.

“That’s the impression that we’ve had since about a week after the Royal Commission was announced, once the terms of reference were announced… but we’re preparing for a few different scenarios so we can respond on Monday,” he said.

“We have several different versions ready to go.”

He said his party’s position on nuclear waste storage “hasn’t really changed over the past many years”, and suggested Labor should maintain the position it took in 2004, when it went to the High Court to kill off a federal proposal to establish a repository at Woomera. Continue reading →

February 12, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Traditional Owners vow to fight nuclear proposals ahead of the Royal Commission’s draft report

Ahead of Monday’s release of the draft report of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, SA Traditional Owners are once again voicing strong opposition to proposals for expanded uranium mining and proposals for nuclear waste dumps and other nuclear projects.

Sue Coleman-Haseldine, co-chair of the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, is a Kokatha-Mula woman from Ceduna and winner of the 2007 Premier’s Award for excellence for indigenous leadership in natural resource management. Ms Coleman-Haseldine said: “I was born on Koonibba Aboriginal Mission in 1951. Atomic bomb tests began in the desert areas north of my birthplace in 1953 when I was two years old. First at Emu Fields and then Maralinga. I grew up under the Maralinga nuclear cloud. Do I want to see my state known worldwide as a nuclear waste dump? No. Do I have the right to subject our future generations to a life of nuclear fear? No. Accidents happen, be it at a uranium mine or on a nuclear freeway or at a nuclear reactor or a dump site.”

Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna elder and President of the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance said: “We will fight this industry across the country, whether it be the expansion of uranium mining or a nuclear waste dump. It is our cultural obligation and responsibility to care for our land. It’s time the government and nuclear industry acknowledge and listen to us. There are and have been so many sick people as a result of this industry. Why has there not been a Royal Commission into the intergenerational health impacts of this industry? How will this Royal Commission measure the risks and impacts on culture and country? You cannot put a number on these things.”

Copied below is a statement from SA Traditional Owners.

South Australian Traditional Owners say NO!

Statement from a community meeting held in Port Augusta on Saturday 16 May, 2015 to discuss the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
We oppose plans for uranium mining, nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps on our land.
We call on the SA Royal Commission to recommend against any uranium mining and nuclear projects on our lands.
We call on the Australian population to support us in our campaign to prevent dirty and dangerous nuclear projects being imposed on our lands and our lives and future generations.
Endorsed by members from the following groups, Kokatha, Kokatha-Mirning, Arabunna, Adnyamathanha, Yankunytjatjara-Pitjanjatjara, Antikirinya-Yunkunytjatjara, Kuyani, Aranda, Western Aranda, Dieri, Larrakia, Wiradjuri

February 12, 2016 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items