Nuclear recycling and reprocessing reduces the volume of spent nuclear fuel that is wasted, it reduces the toxicity & its longevity , and can provide the planet with about 100 times the energy already harvested. It is entirely possible to do this here, particularly if South Australians become aware of the science which is outlined in this Oak Ridge National Laboratory video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdBoBlTSmKw and are as environmentally conscientious as enviro NGOs claim
Nuclear is expanding in many countries, even if you dont like it. It is a readily observable fact. Australia still has to be part of the solution to many global issues, even if we are an island.
We can either choose to do highly paid useful technically challenging activities, provide a valuable service industry, and engage in the higher education & science processes that have brought us a world class society, or we can sit round campfires singing KumByeAhhh and roasting the odd goanna while we wait for the inevitable decay of our society. We can choose to safeguard material in our stable political & geological environment, or leave it where the non proliferation crowd claim ceaselessly is too great a risk. We can manage the material well, or leave it to chance. Recycling & Re-Use is not just good practice for "other" minerals.

Filth is filth - SA is home - does not matter how many zillions of commissions and reports are presented the nature of this filth will not alter , even then greed will eventually determine the real nature of this Pandoras box , how far , how deep , how much , packaging care , transport care etc

Expecting a level handed Report, I was surprised to read in the first few pages recommendations that Government Legislation that restricts any part of the nuclear industry is removed or streamlined to make each step easier. The Report raises some interesting questions, mostly regarding the approach it takes. To begin with, the Report states the Commission's focus is on understanding facts and not accepting perceptions. Perceptions rule our economy. We spend large amounts of money on a particular brand of phone that is produced for a fraction of the cost because of our perceived value of that brand. International perception of South Australia as the centre of clean, quality wine and produce means we have massive export potential in markets yet to be developed. Permanent storage for intermediate (and possibly opening up for future high level) nuclear waste will impact on the South Australian brand, not just locally, but nationally and internationally. Further into the Report it states that policies should be based on evidence, not opinion or emotion. The Report states that with nuclear waste: "The level of hazard reduces over time with radiation levels decreasing rapidly during the first 30 to 50 years of storage, with the most radioactive elements decaying within the first 500 years. However, the less radioactive but longer-lived elements of used nuclear fuel require containment and isolation for at least 100 000 years." The facts of that should be enough for us to never consider digging the ore out of the ground in the first place. The Report says that South Australia can safely increase its participation in the nuclear cycle if the wealth is preserved and equitably shared, there is bipartisan approach and stable government policy, and for the extraction of ore the mining company pays for all decomissioning and remediation of the site. We've found from history that there is no guarantee of any of those factors, let alone years into the future. The most interesting of all the recommendations is "The Commission looked closely at reactor safety and the major accidents associated with nuclear power plants. While acknowledging the severe consequences of such accidents, the Commission has found sufficient evidence of safe operation and improvements such that nuclear power should not be discounted as an energy option on the basis of safety." No one has the right to recommend we take a risk that can potentially impact so disastrously and with such long term impact on the environment. We are making a decision for future generations, not just ourselves, for the return of a few dollars that will be spent in no time. Weighing up the facts of the life-cycle of radioactive waste, any risk of environmental disaster and the effect on branding of South Australia as a clean, green tourist and produce state, versus the dollar return for proceding with further participation in the nuclear fuel cycle, the Report's recommendations are reckless in the extreme.

Expecting a level handed Report, I was surprised to read in the first few pages recommendations that Government Legislation that restricts any part of the nuclear industry is removed or streamlined to make each step easier. The Report raises some interesting questions, mostly regarding the approach it takes. To begin with, the Report states the Commission's focus is on understanding facts and not accepting perceptions. Perceptions rule our economy. We spend large amounts of money on a particular brand of phone that is produced for a fraction of the cost because of our perceived value of that brand. International perception of South Australia as the centre of clean, quality wine and produce means we have massive export potential in markets yet to be developed. Permanent storage for intermediate (and possibly opening up for future high level) nuclear waste will impact on the South Australian brand, not just locally, but nationally and internationally. Further into the Report it states that policies should be based on evidence, not opinion or emotion. The Report states that with nuclear waste: "The level of hazard reduces over time with radiation levels decreasing rapidly during the first 30 to 50 years of storage, with the most radioactive elements decaying within the first 500 years. However, the less radioactive but longer-lived elements of used nuclear fuel require containment and isolation for at least 100 000 years." The facts of that should be enough for us to never consider digging the ore out of the ground in the first place. The Report says that South Australia can safely increase its participation in the nuclear cycle if the wealth is preserved and equitably shared, there is bipartisan approach and stable government policy, and for the extraction of ore the mining company pays for all decomissioning and remediation of the site. We've found from history that there is no guarantee of any of those factors, let alone years into the future. The most interesting of all the recommendations is "The Commission looked closely at reactor safety and the major accidents associated with nuclear power plants. While acknowledging the severe consequences of such accidents, the Commission has found sufficient evidence of safe operation and improvements such that nuclear power should not be discounted as an energy option on the basis of safety." No one has the right to recommend we take a risk that can potentially impact so disastrously and with such long term impact on the environment. We are making a decision for future generations, not just ourselves, for the return of a few dollars that will be spent in no time. Weighing up the facts of the life-cycle of radioactive waste, any risk of environmental disaster and the effect on branding of South Australia as a clean, green tourist and produce state, versus the dollar return for proceding with further participation in the nuclear fuel cycle, the Report's recommendations are reckless in the extreme.

To the government agency. if in the future, say 50 or 100 years there are problems with said dump and it needs to be moved somewhere else. how much is this going to cost and where is it going to go. you know if Murphy's law comes into play.

I believe we should have a nuclear dump that takes the worlds waste and we charge them heaps for it, would be great for the economy and we have heaps of stable land that would be good to use. I also believe we should be using nuclear power as we have an abundance of Uranium in this state, it is a good clean safe way to produce base load power.

I am opposed to the proposed nuclear waste site in South Australia.

I am definitely and emphatically opposed to a nuclear storage facility in S.A. To inflict this waste upon our land and future generations is deplorable. Why does this govt. want to poison the land? Money? No amount would ever console our future generations for the wrong that has been done, nor would any amount ever be able to right that wrong. We are not responsible for the world's nuclear waste and to accept it is paramount to a future of disaster. Have your say.. but will this pig headed govt. take any notice? Once this is here in storage we are stuck with it!

For the avoidance of any doubt, I am strongly opposed to the creation of a nuclear storage facility in this State or Australia for that matter excepting the storage of our own low level nuclear waste. In regard to the recommendations in Chapter 10 of the report my comments are a s follows:
Recommendations 1, .... Strongly disagree with removal of State powers on these matters. This is contrary to the interests of South Australians
Recommendations 2,3,4.......Agree with these recommendations as they apply to mining generally.
Recommendation 5 is an absolute nonsense and I strongly disagree as it is not practical and realistically enforceable. This appears to me be a hollow and deceptive assurance to gain support for recommendations 8 through 12. The recommendation overlooks the appalling history of contamination in this State that has already occurred and can not be economically remediated.
Recommendation 6 Strongly disagree. Do not agree with removing powers on these matters at the State level. Undermines the function and purpose of State Government.
Recommendation 7 Agree subject to this activity NOT contravening the original intent and purpose of this facility. Priority should at all times support the fundamental purpose for which this facility was created.
Recommendation 8 Strongly disagree.
Recommendation 9 Agree with the intent of this recommendation but subject to the removal of Nuclear.
Recommendations 10, 11, 12 Strongly disagree.
In general the report is far too insular and skewed completely in the direction of nuclear at the expense of the raft of other energy technologies that are safer, have much lower risk profiles and show far greater promise with respect to overall cost and sustainability. As a nation we should be focussing greater energy, effort, investment and research into solar, geothermal, and other sustainable energy sources.

This is a forum of peoples personal opinions on nuclear energy, for and against. Is it necessary for contributors on both sides of the discussion to become verbally abusive and rude to others with opinions different to theirs? I've posted my opinions without insulting any others, it can be done. I'm seriously considering not viewing this forum again.

I have 2 degrees - one in science - and have spent the last 15 years reading every article I can on energy security, resource depletion & sustainable futures. I'm also half-way through the Royal Commission's report and have read the summary and recommendations several times. Just so you can be assured the comments below stem from a serious commitment to understanding the issues involved. The Royal Commission has indicated the viability and benefits of a nuclear waste storage facility but has not supported further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle - that is, nuclear power generation. I have no objection to a low level nuclear repository being sited in SA. A centralised repository for the large quantities of relatively low level irradiated items generated by health care and industry would keep such stuff away from population centres for the relatively short period of time required to render it safe. It is a socially responsible initiative that Australia needs to come to terms with as a nation. However, creation of a low-level repository is a completely and utterly different undertaking to anything involving storage of the high-level and waste derived from the nuclear power generation or nuclear weapons industries located in other countries. At present, to enter into a storage undertaking for such higher level wastes we would be entering into a commitment of vast & essentially unquantifiable amounts of money, time, resources and goodwill over hundreds if not thousands of years. A pact with not a single reliable guarantee as to future viability and market partnerships (i.e.; 'customers'). A pact with an international industry that is totally reliant on a consumption & growth-based (and therefore debt-based) vision of the world's economic future - a vision which plain reason suggests is unsustainable! A set of commitments from which the only benefits can be short-term economic outcomes and for which there can be no guaranteed market security! Clearly, if you take time to understand the risks we already face - our dangerous exposure to diminishing oil production (4-6% p.a) and to the depletion of other essential resources, rising environmental pollution and an exploding world-wide population - for South Australia to buy into and become dependent on any component of the international nuclear power cycle at all makes absolutely no sense. It makes no sense at all to me for South Australia to buy into other people's and other nation's nuclear storage challenges. So, no agreement from me with regard to any of the Royal Commission's recommendations except with regard to consideration of a low-level waste repository.

I personally believe that nuclear power generation should be consider as an option for the future.
I don't support criticisms and fears that revolve around Chernobyl and Fukushima as the flaws in both these disasters are evident when looked at closely;
* Chernobyl's reactors were quite long in the tooth and true to old Soviet corner-cutting was powered by Plutonium - PLUTONIUM!!??!!
* Fukushima - on the face of it OK to have a reactor a few hundred meters from the high water mark, and I do speak with hindsight, but that positioning for a reactor in an area that is known for earthquakes and tsunamis?
With South Australia's stability regarding seismic activity, the top of the Gulf St Vincent or Gulf Eyre could be ideal for such an reactor.
The important thing though is how people are engaged and informed about such a venture. The pros and cons must be clear. The reactor design should be the most reliable current light water reactors. And, horrors of horrors, the spent fuel should be stored in South Australia, lest it falls in the hands of some "beloved young leader" who is more interested in nuclear weapons that feeding his people.

As I previously mentioned, I do not support a high-level international dump but I do believe we need to be realistic and realise that we cannot continue to temporarily store our medical/educational/research nuclear waste at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney. Therefore I would support a low-level facility in SA for Australian waste.

As someone who is 100% against the entire Nuclear Fuel Cycle, I am aslo fully aware that it does exist and is something the world must face, not just SA. This leads me to ask many unanswerable questions like;
1. If the current high level waste does not come here, where will it go instead? Could it end up in another country being managed by a corrupt government or private enterprise who will pocket the money paid to manage the waste, and then place it in a forgotten place where it will eventually pollute local land, ground water, rivers and the ocean?
2. Will the money paid to manage the waste give the Nuclear Power Industry more reason to expand in the name of growth and job creation?
We should not be happy just to keep the waste away from us and think we are doing good. Recent Nuclear disasters in Russia and Japan have flow on effects for the entire planet and as someone who is very interested in maintaining a clean environment, I believe our vision should not be restricted to our own back yard.
Could we not use this opportunity to (a) ensure the waste is stored as safely as possable (while recognising nothing is 100% safe) by overseeing the goverments plans and processes, and (b) ensure that a large portion of the money paid is used to increase the use of renewable energy and make the entire Nulear Power Generation Industry unviable in the future?
I can se that my way of looking at the problem may be too simplistic, but I do not like the idea of just saying "Anywhere but here" and Let someone else deal with it."

On numerous occasions throughout my working career I've been told "never ask a question unless you have an answer / don't complain about a problem without an effective solution" and yet people still complain without an answer or solution...........I hear comments like:
- "Think of our children"
- "What about the environment"
If SA doesn't attract some form of economic stimulus, that's all I'll be able to do with my kids (think about them), because they'll be working interstate or overseas. As far as the environment goes, it's a desolate piece of land a "poofteenth" of the states population has ever seen.
Please Jay, for the sake of SA's economic future just get it done, create some jobs and financial security for the 1.4 million people in SA that want a prosperous future.

On numerous occasions throughout my working career I've been told "never ask a question unless you have an answer / don't complain about a problem without an effective solution" and yet people still complain without an answer or solution...........I hear comments like:
- "Think of our children"
- "What about the environment"
If SA doesn't attract some form of economic stimulus, that's all I'll be able to do with my kids (think about them), because they'll be working interstate or overseas. As far as the environment goes, it's a desolate piece of land a "poofteenth" of the states population has ever seen.
Please Jay, for the sake of SA's economic future just get it done, create some jobs and financial security for the 1.4 million people in SA that want a prosperous future.

On numerous occasions throughout my working career I've been told "never ask a question unless you have an answer / don't complain about a problem without an effective solution" and yet people still complain without an answer or solution...........I hear comments like:
- "Think of our children"
- "What about the environment"
If SA doesn't attract some form of economic stimulus, that's all I'll be able to do with my kids (think about them), because they'll be working interstate or overseas. As far as the environment goes, it's a desolate piece of land a "poofteenth" of the states population has ever seen.
Please Jay, for the sake of SA's economic future just get it done, create some jobs and financial security for the 1.4 million people in SA that want a prosperous future.

To Jay and the state Labor Party:
As I type, I’m looking at a photo of Mike Rann celebrating with the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta when they defeated the Howard nuclear dump proposal. Do the words “Judas” and “betrayal” mean anything to you?
Do you really think South Australians are so stupid? This state dump proposal is so full of lies and so obviously about greed, money before the planet, and the rich getting richer. The bias of the Royal Commission is gob-smacking. Let’s start with Kevin Scarce:
Kevin Scarce said in a Flinders Uni lecture in 2014 that he was “an advocate for a nuclear industry”.
He appointed three nuclear advocates to the Committee and only one person who was opposed. Wow – unbiased. Sounds like the work of a nuclear lobby group to me.
This is why we should say NO:
We are leading the country in renewables. Why touch poison when we can be clean, green?
The supposed financial benefits are based on very shakey modeling, and if it all goes wrong, it will bring the opposite of financial windfall and could bankrupt the state.
SA’s track record of “managing” nuclear waste is appalling – look at Maralinga!
And, the state Labor government embezzled 9.1 million plus of OUR public money on a Royal Commission when they could have just asked The Australia Institute to do it. For that money we could be well on the way to building our solar thermal plant at Port Augusta.
Jay, if you want to poison South Australia and take down our pristine environment, amazing tourism, outstanding wines and brilliant organic food, go right ahead. If you want to commit political suicide, that’s your choice. I certainly WON’T be voting for Tom Kenyon in my electorate again. Potential sites haven’t been announced but no surprises for guessing where they’ll be; well, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our incredible, amazing, strong, beautiful and wise Aboriginal people of the nations of South Australia – THEY, are the true wealth of this state! Please pick the good way Jaye, do the right thing, not just for us but for the generations of South Australians to come.

Australians are lucky to pay much less for oil based energy than Europeans do, which in the end prevents lots industries from decreasing growth. Nevertheless, we all should think about what we want for our children. In what environment shall they grow up and raise their kids and so on? If we decide to further invest in old energy as nuclear, they will pay a high price in comparison to what the benefits are in short term. Just have a look at Ukraine or Japan disasters. With the space and environment for it, Australia could easily become a global leader in renewable energy. However, Australians need to rethink their energy consumption as well to make this a success. Stop blowing energy into the air, stop wasting it, start using it wisely.

I am very pleased to read so many well informed comments by people who oppose the proposed nuclear waste dump and who have obviously read the recommendations in the Royal Commission's Report. Your Say keeps asking for people to comment but none of the comments which are against a nuclear waste dump appear to be influencing the government. I think that a broader conversation with the community is only going to be useful if the government listens and gives credence to opinions of people who disagree with the proposals that the government is promoting.

I do not support a nuclear waste dump anywhere in Australia!

I'm not too sure if the renewable energy sources we currently employ can effectively supply a base load for all residential, commercial in industrial needs. In an age where we are dependent on aluminum to mention one example, how many wind turbines will supply the need of aluminum smelter?
Renewable energy sources seems to be reasonably effective, but not economical. For the sake of our needs and lifestyles we will have to turn to something like nuclear power at least on a temporary basis, until other energy sources have been developed or perfected to generate dependable and affordable energy.

I would certainly support a low-level waste facility in SA for Australian (and perhaps also NZ and PNG) medical and educational radioactive waste. I do not however support a high-level international dump. Neither do I support having a nuclear power generating facility, especially considering that we already have viable wind power production and almost potentially limitless solar power production in this State.

Why are we spending so much on this when it is clear that this is not a consultation process but a selling process. I believe the public of SA is sufficiently competent and highly capable to make an informed decision and a referendum is the right way to go given the importance of the matter to ALL South Australians.

Its important not to mix up Power Generation here, with Waste Storage. The reason I am against Generation is not the risk of explosion - its the enormous cost of decommissioning.
But I think Waste Storage would be safe. Certainly safer "all that uranium" lying around in the ground at Roxby!
I would be horrified if the Flinders Ranges had a factory built there, but if folk grumble that Maralinga remains contaminated, putting safe storage there might be acceptable to the local people. But there are plenty of places. Roxby itself is now somewhat run down, and has built in power, water.
What should be remembered is that Chemical Technicians should be in charge, not retrained Miners (with all due respect).