Weatherill Democracy in Action – Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission Tentative Findings
Only on the question of the importation, storage and disposal of nuclear waste is the inquiry up-front. This is seen as a definite goer. A big bold tick for the world’s unloved and unwanted nuclear waste. Oh, and by the way, this includes fuel originating from SA’s uranium via “fuel leasing”. The plan is to store the waste for over a decade before it is disposed.
This happens to be just the sort of time delay that would allow the setting up of a plant to produce fresh 
uranium fuel from the spent fuel. Another discretely hidden tick, this time for processing.
Dr Dennis Matthews (BSc Hon, PhD), 15 Feb 16 After setting up an inquiry with biased terms of reference, chaired by a person with known sympathies for the nuclear industry, and appointing a committee calculated to support a pro-nuclear agenda, Premier Jay Weatherill now says, with his best poker-face, that this will be a test for democracy.
Well may Jay say that this is a test for democracy, because in setting the test he has bastardised democracy and is now endeavouring to head off any objections. One can almost hear the storm troopers rattling their swords as they look forward to putting down anyone with the temerity to challenge the beloved leader.
The so-called “tentative findings” of Weatherill’s mock democratic consultation are as devious as the man himself.
Weatherill would like us to believe that all he is doing is setting up a nuclear waste industry that will bring untold economic benefits to SA, benefits which the rest of the world seems significantly less eager to embrace, especially those with mature nuclear industries generating this noxious product.
In fact, this travesty of an inquiry is preparing the ground for a full-on nuclear SA with uranium mining, nuclear waste importation, nuclear fuel manufacturing and nuclear power. Continue reading
Nuclear Royal Commission backs South Australia as radioactive trash dump
SA nuclear inquiry backs waste dump South Australia should take the world’s nuclear waste in
exchange for billions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs, the state’s nuclear royal commission has found.
But it would not be viable for SA to host a nuclear power plant or to expand into fuel processing in the foreseeable future.
Former governor Kevin Scarce on Monday handed down the royal commission’s initial findings after months of analysis and public consultation.
The waste would then be stored deep underground in purpose-built canisters.
A storage and disposal facility with a capacity of 138,000 tonnes – or about 13 per cent of the world’s projected used fuel inventory – would generate more than $257 billion in revenue over its 120-year lifespan.
Total costs for the facility would reach $145 billion, including the construction of a dedicated port facility, airport and freight rail line, independent modelling shows.
The report assumes it would take 25 years to build the facility, with employment peaking at up to 5000 jobs before tailing off to 600 during operations.
A waste and storage facility could generate more than $5 billion in annual revenue before the yearly waste intake peaks after 30 years and concludes after 70 years.
The commission has also proposed the creation of a state wealth fund in which all profits and a portion of gross revenue would be invested.
Mr Scarce said waste storage presented significant opportunities for the SA economy.
……Any move to embrace nuclear storage would require changes to state and federal legislation.
The commission found that it would not be commercially viable for SA to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant or develop uranium processing facilities.
But the state should still prepare for the possibility of sourcing nuclear power……..http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/15/03/33/sa-nuclear-inquiry-to-present-findings
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.”
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?”
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/
Kevin Scarce – nuclear power not viable now, but will be later?
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”.
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
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
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.”
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
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!
South Australian nuclear waste import plan simply cannot succeed
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.
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.
Exploding Senator Edward’s plan for nuclear waste importing
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 2016The 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?
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
“……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
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 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
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.
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
