Nuclear Waste in South Australia?

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

Let's see if we can get a bit of debate going...

 

 

What do you think about South Australia being the site for a nuclear waste dump?

 

Don't we have the perfect conditions for the site?

Don't we desperately need the cash that would flow into the state?

 

Further to this...shouldn't Australia change policy and develop a nuclear industry? We mine the uranium. Shouldn't we process it here? Wouldn't nuclear power be better for the environment than fossil fuels?

 

We are going to be hearing plenty about this in the years ahead...any views?

 

 

Atomic debate: South Australia considers pros and cons of managing nuclear waste

 

 

 

• CAMERON ENGLAND
  
• Sunday Mail (SA)
  
• March 07, 2015 8:19PM
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are many benefits in managing the nuclear fuel cycle.

 

 

 

 

• SA announces royal commission into nuclear industry
  
• Business SA demands a nuclear industry
  

 

AT SOME stage this year, a ship will depart France on its way to Australia, carrying a payload of nuclear waste.

 

It is our own reprocessed waste, which we need to find somewhere secure to store.

The waste – originally generated at Sydney’s Lucas Heights reactor in the course of the production of nuclear medicine materials and through research programs – is a modest amount, about a third of a shipping container. However, it signifies the forced progression of Australia into another stage of the nuclear fuel cycle.

In short, we need to find somewhere to store  it,  which we currently don’t have. Just this week, perhaps in a sign of desperation, the Federal Government called for voluntary nominations for a national waste dump site.

The battle over where to put a national nuclear waste repository indicates how politically delicate, and useful, nuclear politics are in Australia.

Former SA premier Mike Rann went all the way to the High Court to block a repository for low-level waste planned for SA. This move to protect us from the scourge of radiation ironically has forced about 100 sites around Australia, including hospitals in the Adelaide CBD, to continue to store their own low-level waste in our midst.

Another favoured site in the Northern Territory has been abandoned because of the concerns of traditional owners.

But current Premier Jay Weatherill, perhaps sensing public sentiment is changing, and faced with a bleak economic outlook, has set up a royal commission to look at whether SA should play a greater  role  in  the  nuclear fuel cycle.

The pay-off is talked about being in the billions, but what is the nuclear fuel cycle and is that economic boon a reality?

Currently Australia is only involved in the first stage of the nuclear fuel cycle – that is, we mine uranium and ship it overseas for others to use.

Like many other commodities, such as iron ore and wheat, we miss out on the ­lucrative “value adding” that is involved in making the raw commodity a useful product.

We also miss out on the development of a larger, highly skilled industry.

Once uranium is mined and processed into uranium oxide (U3O8), or what is commonly called yellowcake, it must then be converted into a gas, enriched to a usable concentration and then fashioned into fuel rods for use in nuclear reactors.

Spent fuel must be reprocessed so that usable amounts of  uranium  are  removed. Then what’s left over is stored either in a glass form or as ­Synroc – a cement-like form, which was developed by Australian scientists.

There is also the need for a long-term international waste storage site, which currently doesn’t exist.

Nuclear physicist Dr Tom Quirk, in a paper commissioned by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, lays out the benefits quite simply.

Uranium oxide conversion adds about 10 per cent in value to the original uranium. Enrichment doubles it and fuel fabrication adds another quarter.

Reprocessing or long-term disposal is worth as much again as the original uranium. All up, involvement in the total nuclear fuel cycle – excluding nuclear power – boosts the value derived from uranium by about 250 per cent.

To give an indication of the size of the opportunity, Dr Quirk estimated in 2011: “Australia could ... provide valuable reprocessing and disposal services that have the potential to generate up to $US16 billion annually.

“There is a very substantial potential role for Australia to play in the safe disposal of used uranium fuel ... it could be the beginning of a major contribution to the Australian economy with $2 billion revenues annually by simply taking 2000 tonnes of spent fuel rods generated from our exports of uranium ore.

“This could rise substantially if the facility gained international acceptance. Australia would also be contributing to regional and global concerns about the use of ­nuclear power.

“If Australia were to take advantage of the opportunities available in the nuclear fuel cycle, the majority of the value-added steps could be under­taken as stand-alone business ventures.”

On top of the storage, a $US3 billion enrichment plant, processing 10,000 tonnes of uranium into 1500 tonnes of enriched uranium, would generate revenues of about $US1 billion per year.

While this all sounds great in dollar terms, any windfall would be well down the track.

Former Telstra boss and rocket scientist Dr Ziggy ­Switkowski, in a report prepared for the Howard Government in 2006, found that because our nuclear industry had ­basically evaporated, it would  have  to  be  built  up from scratch.

“Nuclear engineering and nuclear physics skills have seriously declined and limited skills in radiochemistry now exist in this country,” Dr Switkowski found.

“If Australia is to extend its nuclear energy activities beyond uranium mining, there would need to be a substantial addition to the education and research skills base.

“All up, the period for planning, building and commissioning the first nuclear power plant, including establishing the associated regulatory process, is somewhere between 10 and 20 years.”

While any economic gain would be well down the track, there are good reasons for siting a global nuclear waste storage repository in Australia.

 

 

 

 

 

Back in the early 1980s, Olympic Dam owner Western Mining Corporation, now part of BHP Billiton, looked at the best geological sites in the world to put such a facility.

Former WMC executive Hugh Morgan told an Adelaide conference in 2007 it found the best was in the Australian Outback.

“A site (could be placed) in one of the three most secured geological sequences in the world,” Mr Morgan said.

“One of those sequences lies in South Australia and extends into Western Australia, one is in South Africa and one is in China.”

Geology aside, a site would likely be much more welcomed by the global community if it was sited in a politically stable liberal democracy such as Australia, rather than in China or South Africa.

A company called Pangea Resources – a joint venture of British Nuclear Fuels, Golder Associates and Swiss radioactive waste management entity Nagra – proposed such a facility in 1998.

South Australia responded with the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act of 2000, which does exactly what it says on the box.

While the billions of dollars that would flow from a nuclear industry appear attractive, South Australia Greens leader Mark Parnell, in his early-stage submission on the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, says there are plenty of risks that must be taken into account.

These include:

■ The risks to public and individual health from exposure to radiation.

■ The impact of an expanded nuclear industry on South Australia’s reputation as a clean and green food and wine producer.

■ The potential impact of an expanded nuclear industry on SA’s tourism market.

■ The cost and future liability of decommissioning nuclear power plants.

■ The impacts of alternative energy sources and changing energy consumption patterns on the economic viability of nuclear energy development.

Mr Parnell also casts doubt on the “zero carbon” claims of the nuclear industry, saying this does not take into account emissions from the whole of the nuclear cycle.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Parnell told the Sunday Mail that the nuclear industry was on the decline, and none of the so-called next generation of small modular reactors actually existed.

“The Greens do not believe that involving South Australia deeper into the nuclear industry is in the best interests of our state, our planet or future ­generations,” he said.

“Unless the terms of reference are substantially revised, the Royal Commission will be seen as a partisan inquiry with the only questions being asked relating to expanding the nuclear industry.

“The Royal Commission won’t be considering whether SA should extract itself from the nuclear cycle or whether existing and historical nuclear issues have been properly resolved.

“Unless you understand your past and your present, you are in no position to look to the future.”

In the very near future, however, Australia will have an issue regarding where it stores its own waste.

Whether that will be in South Australia, and whether it heralds the start of a lucrative industry, remains to be seen.

[sidestep]

Whichever country uses the fuel should be responsible for the waste generated. Don't see an issue with a central storage facility for nuclear material that has been used/generated in South Australia however that's where it should stop. No reason whatsoever to take other countries waste. Snag is though that if such a site became operational it could easily be expanded by stealth and idiot politicians by which time it would be too late to close it

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

Whichever country uses the fuel should be responsible for the waste generated. Don't see an issue with a central storage facility for nuclear material that has been used/generated in South Australia however that's where it should stop. No reason whatsoever to take other countries waste. Snag is though that if such a site became operational it could easily be expanded by stealth and idiot politicians by which time it would be too late to close it

 

It's amazing just how much nuclear material a country can generate...even non nuclear countries like Australia.

 

So you don't think that we should take spent fuel and material from all over the world? South Australia could earn billions from "safe" storage in the outback... We could store nuclear material and the upside would be investment in roads, facilities, infrastructure all ties to the storage cost.

 

We used to be used for atomic weapon tests. I knew nothing about the Maralinga nuclear tests before moving here.

 

 

The British government / military conducted seven nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga in 1956-57 (and two tests at nearby Emu Fields). Maralinga was also the site of a large number of ‘minor trials’ or ‘safety tests’ which resulted in extensive local radioactive contamination.

A number of Aboriginal people were moved from Ooldea to Yalata prior to the 1956-57 series of tests at Maralinga, and this included moving people away from their traditional lands. Yet movements by the Aboriginal population still occurred throughout the region at the time of the tests. It was later realised that a traditional Aboriginal route crossed through the Maralinga testing range. There are tragic accounts of Aboriginal families sleeping in atomic bomb craters. Native Patrol Officers had the impossible task of patrolling thousands of square kilometres of land.

Operation Buffalo (Maralinga, South Australia)

One Tree – 27 September, 1956 – 12.9 kilotons – plutonium

Marcoo – 4 October, 1956 – 1.4 kilotons – plutonium

Kite – 11 October, 1956 – 2.9 kilotons – plutonium

Breakaway’ – 22 October, 1956 – 10.8 kilotons – plutonium

Operation Antler (Maralinga, South Australia)

Tadje – 14 September, 1957 – 0.9 kilotons – plutonium

Biak – 25 September, 1957 – 5.7 kilotons – plutonium

Taranaki – 9 October, 1957 – 26.6 kilotons – plutonium

 

Do these nuclear tests have anything to do with present day reluctance to embrace storage or a nuclear industry?

[NicF]

I'm a bit torn about this. Part of me doesn't really like the whole nuclear fuel thing but being realistic it is happening and the waste needs to go somewhere. SA has a lot of desert that can't be used for much else so would it really be so bad if we were to use it for nuclear waste? It could have positive financial implications for the state. My only concern would be for the traditional Aboriginal land owners and how something like this would impact on them.

[sidestep]

All nuclear countries worldwide must be rubbing their hands together in eager anticipation of the dumb-as-dog**** Australians willing to become the worlds nuclear dumping ground. So what if it brings in money? The likes of you and me will never see any of it as Govt will simply waste it all on whimsical policies. We won't be taxed any less that's for sure.

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

All nuclear countries worldwide must be rubbing their hands together in eager anticipation of the dumb-as-dog**** Australians willing to become the worlds nuclear dumping ground. So what if it brings in money? The likes of you and me will never see any of it as Govt will simply waste it all on whimsical policies. We won't be taxed any less that's for sure.

 

So that would be a "no" for nuclear waste to be stored south of Adelaide.

 

No-one seems to want nuclear waste stored on their doorstep.

Well, maybe there are some who think it's a good idea....

 

Liberal Senator Sean Edwards unveils radical plan for a booming nuclear industry in South Australia

 

• EXCLUSIVE - TORY SHEPHERD POLITICAL EDITOR
  
• THE ADVERTISER
  
• MARCH 12, 2015 12:00AM
  

SHARE

 

 

309

 

 

 

Billions of dollars from a nuclear industry could deliver free power to all South Australians and the abolition of state taxes, Senator Sean Edwards says.

 

 

• Expert: Nuclear energy is ‘cheap, safe and low carbon’
  
• Conservation SA protests against nuclear industry
  
• Ziggy Switkowski backs moves for nuclear industry
  
• Former governor Kevin Scarce to lead Royal Commission
  

BILLIONS of dollars from the nuclear industry could deliver free power to all South Australians and the abolition of state taxes, a Government Senator says.

South Australia’s Sean Edwards wants to see SA opened up to store spent fuel rods and install generators, securing a “massive inflow” of external money to kickstart the state’s economy in as soon as five years.

Do you support an expanded nuclear industry for South Australia?

 

 

 

Yes - we should embrace nuclear power generation and waste storage 56.17% (3,449 votes)

 

 

Yes - we should store nuclear waste but not build nuclear power stations 2.26% (139 votes)

 

 

No - but we should maintain the current uranium mining arrangements 15.64% (960 votes)

 

 

No - we should shut down the industry altogether 25.93% (1,592 votes)

 

 

Total Votes: 6,140

 

 

 

 

Return To PollCreate Your Own Poll

 

 

 

 

 

Conservationists outside State Parliament protest against nuclear energy on Wednesday. Picture: Calum Robertson

 

 

 

Accessing the tens of billions of dollars in the nuclear industry to store rods would let the state get rid of $4.4 billion in taxes including payroll tax, motor vehicle taxes and the Emergency Services Levy, while generating nuclear power could supply the entire state, he says.That would effectively create a “special economic zone” attractive to business investment.

South Australian Liberal Senator Sean Edwards.

 

 

 

“This can take us from having one of the highest power costs in the world to one of the most competitive — indeed no cost apart from the poles and wires,” Senator Edwards said, adding it would make sense to store rods and build reactors where coal-fired plants are.He has visited other countries involved or hoping to become involved in nuclear and briefed Trade Minister Andrew Robb and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane on the project and introduced them to a country interested in a long-term partnership.Premier Jay Weatherill recently announced a Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.Last night Senator Edwards spoke to Mr Weatherill about working together to create a world-class nuclear industry that would employ thousands of people.Senator Edwards said international partners would pay “handsomely” for SA to store their waste and rods, letting the State Government pay down debt, get rid of taxes, and “providing free power to SA households”.“The science is in. The process is proven and we have a first mover advantage which would see us generate wealth akin to being the Saudis of the South,” he said.“If we compare all major power sources, nuclear is by far the safest. Nuclear power is safer even when everything is going wrong than coal is when everything is going right.”Nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, former chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation who reviewed the industry for the Howard Government in 2006, said the move could “represent billions of dollars of revenue each year”, and that improved technology was convincing people of its safety.“Public opinion about all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle suffered a major setback with Fukushima … but in the intervening four years as people have realised how different Australia is to that part of Japan — we’re not vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis — the interest of Australians in the fuel cycle is returning,” he said.New reactors were a tenth the size and a tenth the cost of older versions, Dr Switkowski said.Nuclear expert Ben Heard, director of ThinkClimate Consulting and doctoral candidate at the University of Adelaide, said everything in Senator Edward’s proposal was “entirely credible”.“That’s not the same as saying it’s easy or a done deal, but it’s credible,” he said.“The used fuel rods ... can be converted into a metal form and that can go into a fast reactor that recycles that material over and over again until all of that material has produced energy, and in that process it converts into a much shorter lived waste form (with a half-life of only 30 years).”The global market was worth hundreds of billions of dollars, which could mean an industry worth tens of billions for SA, he said.Yesterday, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said he was “very interested” in the Royal Commission.“I do think it’s important to see how SA can benefit from greater participation in the nuclear cycle,” he said, adding he would work with the State Government “when they’re being sensible”.

[Toni]

It's a NO for me. I understand the financial side of it but as Sidestep says the government will find something to spend it on other than what it needs to be used for. Not being negative just realistic from what we see already happening. Who knows whether the financial side of it will be worth it in the end, if we use land that is owned by the Traditional owners then the government could be sued in the future for it and tied up in litigation for years to come.

 

I think the "health" safety issues with nuclear waste has not been properly identified either. How often do we hear of contaminated land coming back to bite us - not just here but in other countries too. I don't think there can be a 100% iron clad guarantee that there won't be issues with transporting the waste or that there isn't an accident waiting to happen.

 

I think people mention having it in our outback but what would you think of having it in Port Noarlunga, Christies Beach or on the old RAH site (it might as well be used for something). If there wasn't a safety issue then I don't think it would matter where we dump it.

 

The countries that want it should be responsible for the disposal, rather than trying to dump it on us.

 

When Labor was in opposition it was against this.

[sidestep]

Sean Edwards just sees it as a chance to make a name for himself. Yes, South Australia has high power costs but that's because some other Government numpty decided to sell off the electric power utility to private enterprise who are cashing in nicely whilst the State Govt washes its hands of all the hardships caused. Free power for us citizens? Bah. Same as SA Water. We have the highest cost in the country courtesy of privatisation yet everyone seems to just accept it.

 

Why successive governments can't just take a look at the UK to realise privatisation just doesn't work in favour of the common man is beyond me. They're only ever interested in short term political gain and we all have to keep paying more and more to make it work.

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

Interesting comments. We have some debate!

 

So here are two members who are opposed to nuclear waste in our backyard but is there anyone in favour of it? Almost 60% of the 6140 votes were in favour in the above poll.

 

 

Wouldn't a storage system like a "nuclear U store it" work? A fee could be charged for the initial storage and thereafter a yearly storage fee charged. It would solve this states budgetary problems until large scale projects like Olympic mine and recovery of the massive oil deposits becomes viable.

 

There was a very interesting article that I read about the US problems concerning nuclear waste storage. They have expended billions in massive underground bunkers but they are blocked from finishing and using the facility due to the "not in my backyard" mentality. I'm sure that the other states wouldn't object to the storage here.!

 

We presently have nuclear waste scattered all over the place. It's not properly secured and with our volatile world could easily be used for a crude dirty bomb by a host of terrorist groups. Wouldn't having it in a central, secure and isolated place solve this issue as well?

 

Any more comments and debate around this ?

[sidestep]

I'm not opposed to nuclear waste being stored here provided it's our own waste and not other countries. Why does the government see the need to whore Australia to the rest of the world? That is perhaps the better topic.

[chrisda]

I'm not opposed at all. Bring it on and dump the stuff in the outback. Spend the cash on infrastructure like the oil states did and transform this state.

[Toni]

Personally I would never want our country to be a waste dump. Those who use it should be working out how to dump it in their own back yard (so to speak) Adelaide has become a state that is one of top places to live. We hear that all the time. I wonder how that would affect our rating and tourism. Tourism is a large money generating income for our state. Do they have tours of waste dumps? I can just see it now "come to Adelaide - the top destination with the best waste dump in the country"

 

Where would it be dumped in the outback? A lot of our outback are tourist attractions.

[zebedee]

Assuming it can be safely stored, managed correctly, in a remote part of SA that is also sensitive to Aboriginal history and culture, I am initially pro at least exploring the idea. It's a world problem and sooner or later some nut job is gonna get their hands on some of this stuff. I'd rather see it locked away, ready to re-used for good and see SA earning some solid $$$$ for the privilege.

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

There is a difference between radioactive waste which we have to dispose of / store and high level nuclear waste which is typically the by product of nuclear power generation and bomb production.

In the first case we have no choice and have to plan for and adequately store todays and future material.

The second issue of being a storage region for high level nuclear waste is another story.

 

This is interesting:

 

• Home
  
• Nomination process
  
• The project
  
  • Consultation
    

   

  [*]The case for action

  • The case for action
    
  • International examples
    

   

  [*]Radioactive waste in Australia

  • Australia's radioactive waste
    
  • Transportation of radioactive waste
    
  • Where we use radioactive material
    

   

  [*]History

  [*]Resources

  • Related information
    
  • Media releases
    
  • Glossary of terms
    

   

  [*]Contact us

Are you a title holder of approximately 100 hectares of land? Have you considered nominating your land to the Australian Government for a facility to manage Australia’s radioactive waste?

A generous payment will be offered to the landholder of the successful site identified. The Australian Government will also work with the local community to develop a package of benefits for that community. The opportunity to nominate land is open until 5 May 2015 with a view to selecting a preferred site by mid-2016.

Interested Landholders should go to How to lodge a nomination for information about the Nomination Guidelines and steps to make a nomination.

The Government is committed to establishing a national facility to safely store and dispose of Australia’s existing and future waste. It is our responsibility to properly manage the waste created in Australia largely as a result of medical and other scientific procedures.

The Department of Industry and Science will undertake a desktop review of available national data sources in relation to the Objectives and Criteria when evaluating the nominated sites.

The Government is committed to a transparent and rigorous technical, economic, social and environmental assessment and stakeholder and community engagement process.

Australia does not produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons and does not produce or store high level radioactive waste

[John Browning]

correct me if I'm wrong...but there is a world of difference between the spent fuel rods and high level waste shown in the schematic, and the kind of low level waste produced in hospital radiology departments (-and from items such as domestic smoke detectors etc etc)

....Are we only talking about the former here?

 

JB

[clarkes]

Think that the article is the low level stuff. Reckon that the half life will still be thousands of years though!

[sidestep]

Won't make any difference in the long run if it starts out as "low level". Does anyone really think it wouldn't be expanded to include high level waste at some point?

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

It's interesting to hear different opinion of whether to store radioactive waste in the South Australian outback.

 

Does anyone know much about Britain's worst nuclear accident...Windscale?

The site at Sellafield in Cumbria (same place...different name!) currently stores the bulk of the UK's nuclear waste.

 

Quite a scenic place for a nuclear storage site is Cumbria...

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

The nuclear industry does have it's supporters and potential for our state though...

 

[h=1]Nuclear could “transform” SA, experts say[/h]

• CAMERON ENGLAND
  
• THE ADVERTISER
  
• APRIL 14, 2015 12:00AM
  

SHARE

 

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

 

 

 

 

 

Worker securing uranium product in drums being loaded into a shipping container.

 

 

URANIUM industry experts believe the Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle in South Australia represents a “transformative opportunity’’ for the state.

ThinkClimate Consulting director Ben Heard told the South Australian Resources and Energy Conference in Adelaide yesterday that SA needed to ensure it kept its competitive advantage over other states in the uranium sector, which the Royal Commission succeeded in doing.“The Royal Commission has had the impact of raising South Australia’s profile on the international stage,’’ Mr Heard said.Mr Heard’s comments followed Mineral Resources Development Minister Tom Koutsantonis earlier in the day pointing out that Canada’s nuclear industry contributed about $7 billion to the economy each year and directly employed 20,000 people.“An industry of comparable size in South Australia would be a considerable expansion of our current capabilities,’’ he said.“South Australians are now being asked to consider whether we simply remain a supplier of uranium, only exporting our commodities to the world, or whether like Canada, we capture further opportunities in the sector, which could generate considerable wealth at home.“The findings of a Royal Commission will better equip South Australians to answer those questions through a robust examination of the facts.’’Toro Energy managing director Dr Vanessa Guthrie said while the uranium exploration industry had been progressing in Australia in recent years, it would take an upswing in the price to kickstart mine developments.She was bullish on the uranium price over the medium term.“It’s been a hard road for four years,’’ Dr Guthrie said.“We believe that the uranium price will shift strongly between here and 2020.’’Dr Guthrie said she believed the uranium price recovery post-Fukushima would mirror that after the Three Mile Island nuclear incident, after which the price took a decade to bounce back.The potential price rebound would be driven by ongoing strong investment in new nuclear power facilities, particularly in China and India.“The predicted growth in nuclear power ... is something like 89 per cent between now and 2040,’’ Dr Guthrie said.“The growth, particularly in China, moving to 128 reactors by 2030, today they have 27 under construction ... bringing on five reactors per annum and have been for the past three years.’’“Equally India expects to see significant growth from five under construction today to a further 27 by 2030.“We have 437 mature operating nuclear reactors in the world today, there are 70 further under construction with another 179 proposed.’’Toro’s Wiluna project, which would produce about two million pounds of uranium per year for more than 15 years, was ready to go “pending final feasibility’’.Dr Guthrie said the company would be seeking a strategic partner, most likely an equity partner looking for an offtake agreement, to help fund the project’s development at that stage.The Royal Commission, headed by former State Governor Kevin Scarce, is expected to report back by May 6 next year.

[Guest Guest14361]

When the miners move onto pastures new there will be lots and lots of holes in the ground whether open cast or actual mines. These will be then filled with the waste and buried, people will pay millions to get rid of this waste, this state needs millions to bring it out of the doldrums, it's a no brainer

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

It's not going to happen overnight and it's not a short term economic fix for our job losses...but it's moving forwards.

 

Nuclear waste dump should be first cab off the rank, report finds

 

• MILES KEMP
  
• SUNDAY MAIL (SA)
  
• AUGUST 01, 2015 9:39PM
  

 

 

 

 

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste dump in Nevada, USA being built in 1992.

 

 

• SA announces Royal Commission into nuclear power
  
• $20bn blueprint to create a nuclear industry in SA
  
• SA unemployment rate now at 15-year high
  

A BRIEFING paper delivered to the State Government recommended the state accept Taiwan’s nuclear waste, access that nation’s $10 billion disposal fund and establish an Outback nuclear waste dump to revive the economy.

As the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission explores the option to help solve SA’s jobs crisis, theSunday Mail has obtained a copy of a report prepared for former Employment and Science Minister Tom Kenyon which argues the case for a waste dump near Woomera.“There is clear potential for South Australia to benefit economically, revitalising the state economy and providing residents with potentially unprecedented levels of prosperity and investment, while inaction will merely result in a further decline of services and infrastructure,” the document prepared last year said.“Importing high-level waste from countries overseas presents a lucrative economic opportunity for South Australia to develop strategic partnerships with nations providing the most advantageous relationships for the state and Australia.“Establishing a nuclear waste repository may create potential for South Australia to benefit economically, revitalise South Australian production of services and infrastructure and significantly improve levels of investment in the state.’’

Trucks carrying drums of low level radioactive nuclear waste to a storage facility in Woomera in 1995.

 

 

 

The report, which ended up in the MP-only Parliamentary Library, recommends SA approach Taiwan and Japan because they are too geologically unstable to store the nuclear waste they generate, as well as Korea, which has 10,000 tonnes in temporary storage, and is projected to have 110,000 tonnes by the year 2100.Mr Kenyon, now a backbench MP, refused to comment on the report.The Sunday Mail understands it was not presented to Cabinet but became instrumental in prompting the current Royal Commission into the potential for the nuclear fuel cycle to revive the SA economy.The Government has not declared a position on the potential for a nuclear industry, and will not make a submission to the Royal Commission it instigated.

Former Employment and Science Minister Tom Kenyon with Premier Jay Weatherill. Picture: TAIT SCHMAAL

 

 

 

But the report found the risks associated with transporting high-level waste to a nuclear dump in SA would be worth it economically.“Confidence in the economic future of South Australia is diminishing, indicative of a need to diversify the South Australian economy beyond the mining industry in order to improve the state’s short-term budget projections and minimise the detrimental effect of future financial crises and a fluctuating Australian dollar,’’ the report states.The site of the dump would be near Woomera, the most geologically stable in SA, and it would accept 1000 tonnes of waste per year.The report found there needed to be a good public relations campaign to convince people of the safety of the plan, and that money raised should be spent on infrastructure like the SA leg of a high speed rail to Melbourne.It also proposed a model in which SA generate more money by leasing yellowcake mined here and taking it back as waste, and as a trade off people be guaranteed there will be no nuclear power plants in SA.

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

The release of the Royal Commission report has made headlines in our papers.

 

It's going to get interesting when the lobby groups get organized and this may affect the future polls...We are going to hear plenty more on this issue.

 

Nearly half of SA supports nuclear waste dump in the state, Galaxy poll shows

 

February 22, 2016 9:00pmEXCLUSIVE — DANIEL WILLS STATE, POLITICAL EDITORThe Advertiser

 

More videos

Dateline examines opposing views on the disposal of nuclear waste and, which nations are the biggest dumping grounds.

 

 

• ANALYSIS: This is a remarkable shift in mood
  
• NUCLEAR DOSSIER: Everything you need to know about the nuclear issue
  
• DIFFERING VIEWS: 20 South Aussies have their say
  
• ATOM BOMB: Push to store nuclear waste in facility in Maralinga
  
• UNITED: Historic political support for high-level nuclear waste dump
  

 

ALMOST half of the state backs establishing a high-level nuclear waste facility in South Australia, and support for the controversial proposal is strongest in the city and among men.

An exclusive Advertiser-Galaxy poll is the first test of public opinion since the release of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s interim findings last week.

In a shock result, it shows the number of people who support setting up a high-level international nuclear waste dump in SA outnumber their opponents by a significant margin.

Overall, 48 per cent of respondents back the idea and 39 per cent are against. A relatively small 13 per cent of people are uncommitted, indicating there are strong passions on both sides.

Has your view on a nuclear waste storage facility changed over the years?

 

 

 

Yes - I now support the idea but previously did notNo - I have always supported the ideaYes - I now do not support the idea, but previously didNo - I have never supported the idea

VOTE!

View Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Adelaide, 50 per cent of respondents back the dump and 38 per cent oppose. That result is reversed in the regions, where nuclear opponents outnumber supporters by a slim 43-41.

It is a seismic shift since 2000, when international conglomerate Pangea proposed a high-level nuclear waste dump for SA and a huge 95 per cent of poll respondents statewide rejected it.

Other Stories

 

 

 

 

 

However, the biggest divide today is on gender lines. Men, who are hardest hit by the decline of traditional manufacturing industries, give overwhelming 59 per cent support to a dump.

That compares with just 38 per cent of women backing the idea. A larger 44 per cent are against it.

Support for a dump also rises with age, and those aged over 50 are its strongest backers.

In a significant political coup for Premier Jay Weatherill, the move also appears to have expanded his appeal among people who consider themselves Coalition voters.

While Labor voters back the prospect of a nuclear waste facility 47-40, Mr Weatherill is threatening to lure away some of the 59 per cent of Liberals who endorse storage.

 

The full poll results

 

Former Governor Kevin Scarce last week released his long-awaited report on expanding peaceful aspects of the nuclear industry that examined the risks and benefits of greater involvement.

It all but ruled out nuclear power and enrichment for the state on commercial grounds, but found there could be a huge financial and economic benefits from high-level waste storage.

Mr Scarce found there are possible revenues to the state of $5.6 billion a year on average for the first 30 years, and about $2.1 billion a year over the following 43 years.

The state would earn an estimated $257 billion over the life of the project, with $145 billion to be spent on waste management as well as construction work which would create jobs.

Up to 5000 jobs are estimated to be created during the 25-year construction of a deep underground waste repository, along with 600 fulltime jobs once it is operational.

 

Bruce Wilson from the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, with simulated low-level radioactive waste drum. Picture Campbell BrodieThe industry could create a state wealth fund of $445 billion over 70 years, the commission found. It is expected to be at least a decade before the industry could be established and waste and revenue could be received.

Environmentalists have in turn raised concerns about damage to the image of SA’s agricultural and food industries, as well as the danger of accidents in transport and storage.

Leaders of both major political parties, state and federal, have pledged to keep an open mind on the topic and say further analysis of the risks as well as more community debate is needed.

The poll results will hearten nuclear advocates, ahead of the Royal Commission’s final report to be released on May 6 and a State Government response due before the end of the year.

Mr Weatherill has said both political consensus and community consent are non-negotiable if the state is to expand its role in the nuclear fuel cycle and agree to international waste storage.

Reports provided to the Royal Commission propose that it eliminate inappropriate sites across the state on weather and geological grounds, before calling on communities to volunteer as hosts.

However, current controversy over a separate proposal for a low-level nuclear waste dump to house materials including clothing exposed to radiation shows that will be a tough ask.

Angry Kimba residents have vented frustration at the Federal Government in public meetings after their town delivered two of six sites on a national shortlist to take the low-level waste.

Responses on a possible high-level waste site storage site show country residents are sceptical.

Forty-three per cent of regional South Australians oppose the idea, outnumbering the 41 per cent who support it. The most stridently opposed group to nuclear storage of those surveyed is in the regions, where 29 per cent of respondents are “strongly opposed” to the idea.

The poll of 474 SA residents was taken between Thursday and Sunday.

[John Browning]

- not at all keen on countries likke Bangladesh trying to store nuclear waste

 

JB

[John Browning]

how would this work as an alternative closed- loop business model:

 

A) Olympic Dam continue to produce the yellow cake as a side- product of it's copper mining process

 

B) instead of shipping out 44 gallon drums of uranium ore, OD goes the extra step of producing the fuel rods

 

C) the value-added product is then leased to a specific certified Nuclear Authority - and they pay a really substantial deposit on each fuel rod, in addition to the lease fee.

 

D) the Nuclear Authority can't claim the deposit back until the rod is returned intact (-at their expense), to be vitrified and buried (-possibly back in the same stope where the ore originated

 

 

 

JB

[John Browning]

"So that would be a "no" for nuclear waste to be stored south of Adelaide.

 

No-one seems to want nuclear waste stored on their doorstep". (-Tamara)

well Tamara, perhaps people need reminding that they almost certainly live (- or at any rate commute through-) Suburbs that already have Nuclear Waste Facilities. These are usually in the form of pissy little containers off to the side of those Self Storage Units.

 

Or perhaps they need reminding that (- as Federal Labor had to concede almost forty years ago-) :

 

"-This is an industry that is not going away"

 

Even if Australia can work out a way of avoiding a Nuclear Power Plant:

 

A) many 3rd world countries can't see their way forward to develop our standard of living, without some Nuclear Power in their mix

 

B) SA already produces large quantities of yellow cake as a bi product of our Copper Mining.

 

.... and we ship the Uranium Oxide all around the world in pissy 44 gallon drums.

 

.......and we do this without accepting any responsibility whatsoever for the spent fuel rods at the other end of the cycle

 

C) we've already allowed Nuclear Bomb testing on our very own doorstep

 

D ) as with most developed nations we already produce very large quantities of radioactive waste when producing Radio Therapy compounds for Medical treatments

 

E) at present all this waste is stored in a series of very low tech, low security containers throughout Metropolitan areas

 

F) We have been profitting from all this for decades,

 

-Anyone would think we have some God Given Right to take the high moral ground in this so-called debate, when we really ought to be playing catch- up to live up to our existing responsibilities.

 

:swoon:JB