South Australia can safely increase its participation in nuclear activities. Such participation brings social, environmental, safety and financial risks. The state is already managing some of these risks, and the remainder are manageable. Some new nuclear fuel cycle activities are viable. One in particular, the disposal of international used fuel and intermediate level waste, could provide significant and enduring economic benefits to the South Australian community. Viability analysis undertaken for the Commission determined that a waste disposal facility could generate more than $100 billion income in excess of expenditure (including a $32 billion reserve fund for facility closure and ongoing monitoring) over the 120-year life of the project (or $51 billion discounted at 4 per cent). Given the significance of the potential revenue and the extended project timeframes, the Commission has found that were such a project to proceed, it must be owned and controlled by the state government, and that the wealth generated should be preserved and equitably shared for current and future generations of South Australians. This presents an opportunity that should be pursued. Social consent is fundamental to undertaking any new nuclear project. Social consent requires sufficient public support in South Australia to proceed with legislating, planning and implementing a project. Local community consent is required to host a facility. In the event that this involves regional, remote and Aboriginal communities, consent processes must account
for their particular values and concerns. Political bipartisanship and stable government policy are also essential. This is particularly important given the long-term operation of facilities and the need for certainty for potential client nations.

There is a range of complex and important steps that would need to be taken to progress such a proposal. The Commission has therefore recommended that the South Australian Government pursue the opportunity to establish used nuclear fuel and intermediate level waste storage and disposal facilities in South Australia consistent with the process and principles outlined in Chapter 10 of this report. This includes suggested immediate steps, and those that may arise in the future.

Apart from the carbon intensive nature of nuclear reactors - from the point of mining uranium, to its processing for usability and subsequent use, nuclear reactors take 10+ years to commission. Additionally, in a market of plummeting battery storage, solar panel & wind turbine manufacturing & use costs, nuclear is not economically viable.
By the time a nuclear reactor was up & running in South Australia, it would have already been getting 100% daily power from wind & solar. SA is way ahead of the rest of Australia in renewable energy.

[size=8]Apart from the carbon intensive nature of nuclear reactors[/size] - from the point of mining uranium, to its processing for usability and subsequent use, nuclear reactors take 10+ years to commission. Additionally, in a market of plummeting battery storage, solar panel & wind turbine manufacturing & use costs, nuclear is not economically viable.
By the time a nuclear reactor was up & running in South Australia, it would have already been getting 100% daily power from wind & solar. SA is way ahead of the rest of Australia in renewable energy.

Apart from the carbon intensive nature of nuclear reactors - from the point of mining uranium, to its processing for usability and subsequent use, nuclear reactors take 10+ years to commission. Additionally, in a market of plummeting battery storage, solar panel & wind turbine manufacturing & use costs, nuclear is not economically viable.
By the time a nuclear reactor was up & running in South Australia, it would have already been getting 100% daily power from wind & solar. SA is way ahead of the rest of Australia in renewable energy.

The Commission has found that commercial electricity generation from nuclear fuels is not viable in South Australia under current market rules. However, it has found that nuclear energy has the potential to contribute to national emissions abatement after 2030. Given the need for significant decarbonisation of our electricity sector to meet future emissions reduction goals, the Commission has recommended the development of a comprehensive national energy policy, which enables all technologies, including nuclear, to contribute to a reliable, low-carbon electricity network at the lowest possible system cost.

I remember a story about such a facility in New Mexico USA where the leakage of 1 barrel of waste essentially rendered a $19bn facility useless. The wrong type of kitty litter was blamed.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant

Can the government assure us that this sort of incident will not occur again? It's a massive cost outlay.

The operation of the WIPP facility in New Mexico is currently suspended following an accident in February 2014. The
accident was caused by a failure to follow strict protocols in packing a waste drum. Incompatible materials were packed
together, which caused a chemical reaction that opened the lid of the drum. The accident resulted in the exposure of 21
employees to small doses of radiation (equivalent to a chest x-ray) following its release to the environment.
It is planned to reopen in late 2016. Given the different type of waste disposed of at Asse and WIPP, neither of these examples has direct technical relevance to the storage and disposal of used fuel. However, they are salient reminders that, despite broad international scientific consensus that geological disposal of used fuel can be achieved safely, it can also be implemented poorly.

I'm open to the idea because we need the revenue but want to read a bit more about the environmental and economic impact. $51 billion over 120 years doesn't sound that great though.

que?

The purpose would not be to store our own nuclear waste, nor does it involve SA building a nuclear reactor.

It is storage of nuclear waste from elsewhere, in and of itself.

Nuclear waste exists, it needs to be stored somewhere. From what I have read, SA is well suited from a geological perspective.

So I am cautiously in favour of it.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 27/5/2016 12:33:54 PM

The initial post mentioned building nuclear reactors

500 million a year for barrels sitting 1 km below ground is not bad going. Plenty of road projects can be funded with that sort of annual intake

I was waiting for someone to question this (see I know these things in advance).
From the initial mining, to processing to use, it results in significant carbon dioxide output. The processing is the worst stage.
An article was written it on The Conversation about 2 years ago.

Breathing results in carbon dioxide output. It doesn't mean its excessive. In some cases around here though I wonder.

Has The Conversation been peer reviewed for accuracy?

Nah, but I've heard that all of the media in Murdoch's empire has

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 27/5/2016 07:20:06 PM

Apart from the carbon intensive nature of nuclear reactors - from the point of mining uranium, to its processing for usability and subsequent use, nuclear reactors take 10+ years to commission. Additionally, in a market of plummeting battery storage, solar panel & wind turbine manufacturing & use costs, nuclear is not economically viable.
By the time a nuclear reactor was up & running in South Australia, it would have already been getting 100% daily power from wind & solar. SA is way ahead of the rest of Australia in renewable energy.

Apart from the carbon intensive nature of nuclear reactors - from the point of mining uranium, to its processing for usability and subsequent use, nuclear reactors take 10+ years to commission. Additionally, in a market of plummeting battery storage, solar panel & wind turbine manufacturing & use costs, nuclear is not economically viable.
By the time a nuclear reactor was up & running in South Australia, it would have already been getting 100% daily power from wind & solar. SA is way ahead of the rest of Australia in renewable energy.

Solar and wind have never had that level of success anywhere and will never provide 100% power for any part of Australia. Both still require proper energy generation sources to guarantee base load power. Stop passing your wacko religious beliefs off as fact.

Solar and wind have never had that level of success anywhere and will never provide 100% power for any part of Australia. Both still require proper energy generation sources to guarantee base load power. Stop passing your wacko religious beliefs off as fact.

I would have agreed with this point in the past. However, with such developments as the Tesla Power Wall and the like, this seems like it will become much less of an issue in future.

I think it is reasonable to think that we aren't too far from a point where a large proportion of "baseload" power will be generated and used at the household level. The grid will only be needed when there is a surge in use, or extended periods of low sunlight etc.

Bingo.

I think all new houses should be built with solar panels (along with water tanks while we're at it). In all honesty, what difference to the price of a home is 6-8k going to make?

The biggest annoyance for me is regulating the size of panels you can have. If someone wants to actually sell power back to the grid, why stop them?

True - but that problem itself will be eliminated with the battery storage capability now coming out such as the Tesla Power Wall.

The "grid" itself will become less relevant once you can store excess power generation locally.

Do you know of a reason why they regulate the number of solar panels you can have? Is it safety issues with current and former energy storage devices?