By providing your email address, you agree to receive information and updates from YourSAy. You can stop email communication by clicking the 'unsubscribe' link found in YourSAy email newsletters and updates. For more details, please refer to our Privacy Policy http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/privacy-policy.
Comment on the specific recommendations in the Royal Commission's Report
Your comments will help us to understand your initial thoughts and concerns and will support the development of a broader conversation with the community.
Comments closed
The notorious nuclear accidents of past have resulted from silly decisions - building a nuclear power plant on an earthquake fault line in a location subject to tsunami, as in Japan in the 1970s. Or plain stupidity, as in the Ukraine, when during a test in 1984, the operators cut off the cooling water system of a reactor without first understanding the limitations of the back-up system. The Three Mile Island accident was a case of poor quality pipe welding. But the relevant technologies, safety and quality systems have progress a long way since then.
In Australia there is a somewhat understandable concern regarding anything ‘nuclear’. Many advancements carry risks. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t proceed with them. The important thing is to manage them carefully and methodically. We have operated a small nuclear reactor on the outskirts of Sydney, at Lucas Heights successfully and safely for decades. At the same time analysis shows that nuclear power generation in Australia is too expensive, and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future.
As far as I understand it, in South Australia the current proposal will be to store nuclear waste, not generate power. And we are ideally placed to do that - probably as well placed as anywhere in the world. With careful planning and careful stringent safety arrangements it could be a boon for our State. We need new industries and revenue so that government can fund all the services that people want and expect.
So my view is that: if there are international customers willing to sign up for the long term and pay the price; if the business case makes sense; and we are confident of the technology and the safety systems, then we should proceed as is suggested in the report.
Careful , Methodical , not words I associate with any part of the nuclear industry, you make a reasonable case but the history tells you it cannot be done and if money is your only criteria as with almost all the yes please people, then again no... why not do it for cost price only because the planet needs it done and we care about a safe planet for all and all this waste needs safe storage we could be standing so high on the moral ground... thought not... MONEY show me the MONEY :)
Like
(0)
Like
(0)
I have commented a fair amount generally on sections of the Royal Commissions Report. There has been some recent news that has been made public regarding the Japanese Nuclear Disaster.
Please read the full report below as it debunks various sections of the Royal Commission. The President Obama appointed the Head of the US watchdog has the following to say. These are facts.
"Appointed to head the US nuclear watchdog by President Barack Obama in 2009, Dr Jaczko resigned a year after the Fukushima disaster.
A particle physicist, he now questions the safety of nuclear power.
"You have to now accept that in all nuclear power plants, wherever they are in the world … that you can have this kind of a very catastrophic accident and you can release a significant amount of radiation and have a decade long clean-up effort on your hands," he said."
I hope that we are getting to a point of mass realisation, even the experts on Nuclear Energy are turning. Some will be die-hards and expect that they will be in Australia as we make money from the supply of the fuel. Its going to go down to the wire..........
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-24/fukushima-operator-reveals-600-tonnes-melted-during-the-disaster/7396362
The energy output from Nuclear Power is simply to large for us to control, i.e every the robots that have sent to area where most the waste is has burnt out from the radiation (which by the way, are designed to with stand). Now with 100's of tonnes missing, being so close to ocean. Who really knows where it is? The clean-up they are saying will costs 10's Billions. They are only measuring the value they are directly spending, how much value do you think has been lost to Japan's reputation and credibility. What is the cost of the damage to the environment that have not yet been made aware of? $240Billion has been mentioned, I suspect this is still low if you account for the capital loss from the Nature Loss in Decades to come! That's more than all the Oil and Gas Project in Australia for the last 6 years!!!
I understand waste has safer attributes due to it method of storage than live rods. But i will still hold the view that the largest risk is financial as Nuclear Power Stations will turned off and can be used with some modification as a means for storage of the waste and lack of Power Station owners to be able to fund to life of the waste storage. S.A will need to complete in this space while building a brand new facility for 10+ years. The world changes and quickly. Fair bit has changed such a short time.
Like
(1)
1. MSRs
There is an issue with post 1945 nuclear reactors being developed to generate supplies of weapons grade nuclear wastes now being historic waste generation.
Thorium fuel cycle MSRs can dispose of nuclear wastes.
Wastes from nuclear energy have been successfully contained in glass vessels embedded in concrete, thousands of metres underground in natural granite in Scandinavia for decades. Why attempt to hide nuclear wastes superficially just below loose backfill material in a State historically contaminated by Maralinga tests based on ignorance and contamination from post WWII nuclear tests and pollution. Why was there a need for a Maralinga restricted area and a clean up if it had "no risks to the future and environment"?
Transporting wastes internationally to a waste dump is a high risk pursuit relative to environmental issues from spillage and from any terrorist activity mid delivery. This makes the Security costs astronomical if you want any guarantees against Exxon Valdez, Macondo, Alpha Piper, etc.
2. SMR's
Current design efforts globally on nuclear reactors is to pursue modular small passive safe reactors. The FSU and USA are almost capable of " off the shelf QA on Kursk submarine scale nuclear reactors which are passive safe and capable of " return to supplier" maintenance. A modular container sized reactor amongst twenty others which can be taken back to the manufacturer's service facilities and have Boeing QA is a safe nuclear energy industry.
3. Risk
Chernobyl was up and operating circa 1954 in a country than historically shunned intellectuals and management hierarchies.
Fukushima was designed for an 8m tidal wave, not an 18m tidal wave.
Current global design practice for sites classified as " Hazardous" are vastly different to 1951.
4. Renewables
There will never be a day where renewable energy can provide 100% of user needs unless SA has tidal, wind, solar in excess of consumption tied to Tesla style lithium storage capabilities.
5. Playford offered cheap land and cheap energy. We now know brown coal if filthy and GM, Chrysler and Ford are departing Australia. The mistake was not robotising Tesla car production before the Chinese cars were produced and believing brown coal on a rail track to a remote power station was cost effective in the future.
A bunch of SMR MSR adjacent to the existing Pt Augusta grid connections, capable of off peak desalination ( more water evaporates off Spencer Gulf on a breezy summer day than a desal plant effects Spencer Gulf salinity in a month. The brine from the desal could be piped to salt farms anyway without environmental damage. SA has excellent dry climate for salt production anyway.
A bunch of SMRs producing off peak desal water for Olympic Dam and Pt Augusta glass houses could also supplement the Murray supply in a drought by desal water production additional to off peak by using additional SMRs on the proposed desal plant. BHP could be an Angel financier for the desal and SMR, using salt mining, surplus electricity and clean water for ROI contribution. Simultaneous solar, wind, tidal power enhancements to enable peak use of desal is suggested.
These comments were written without reading the findings of the Royal Commission and are based on my personal knowledge, expertise, experience, world history, hope and a clean tomorrow...
Comments welcomed based on contributions by expertise.
I thank the mediators of this forum for making the effort to seek advice from the public and experts. I trust the legal profession and politicians associated with the pursuits of this Forum continuously seek exhaustive advice from appropriate qualified and experienced expertise very early in any planned expenditure or planning or risk evaluation.
BTW why aren't European carp in the Murray farmed, harvested, ground up and used for prawn farms and cat food in affluent countries on a huge scale?
JF CPEng, MIEAust.
Like
(1)
The report paints a biased view of renewable energy. The report states "Modelling suggests that it is unlikely that Australia could fully decarbonise its electricity sector by 2050 by relying on renewables alone." Really? A number of studies have found this could be achieved, even before 2050. Here's one. The Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy Plan outlines a technically feasible and economically attractive way for Australia to transition to 100% renewable energy within ten years. https://bze.org.au/zero-carbon-australia/stationary-energy-plan
Agreed. The report frequently states 'modelling suggests'. In this instance there's a reference to a 2014 IPCC study by Garnaut and Karoly. I haven't read their report but wonder how anyone can disprove something happening 34 years off.
I guess it assumes we'll have a succession of politicians that are in the pocket of the coal industry, have no interest in technical developments and associated job creation - and don't give a damn about the environment.
Like
(1)
Alan, 34 years off ... how about 10,000+ for radionuclide storage? Agriculture only emerged c 8000bce & look at the political stability since then. NOT.
Like
(0)
Like
(1)
It may be a controversial view, but given that Australian's are known for caring for the environment, then why don't we become the experts in nuclear? My vision is that we become the experts on nuclear power, storage and use of nuclear derivatives for the good of South Australia, and as an export, for the good of the rest of Australia and humanity. And we do this with the caring we display for the environment, with strong technology and world leading expertise. It's a question of how far we can rise above our insecurities, knowing that there is a risk, but also knowing that we have the will, skills and expertise to create a world leading industry, good for SA jobs, good for the SA economy, that contributes to a "greener" economy. If you want, we play a societal role in converting other peoples waste into something good. Or, we do this because in a competitive world, South Australia needs to find a niche. Either way, we should pursue the Nuclear agenda, fully aware of the risks, but confident in the standards we uphold guiding us to best make use of this opportunity. Yes, we need to flesh out the detail, but as a nation, we need to make choices that ensure a future and that does not rely on federal assistance. In this, we need to put a stake in the ground for our own benefit. In the final reckoning, when SA gets assessed, did we use our talents, or were they squandered in ignorance? I'd rather be confidently fearful, and move forward with the Nuclear initiative, versus a future of limited growth, no jobs, social welfare and very little to offer our partners in the Australian economy.
Like
(1)
I would like to see more attention in the discussion of this proposal paid to the above ground "interim" storage facility (ISF). The Report models a existing U.S facility for its design, costings and environmental impact, pg.98. The Report's timeline prioritizes the 'ISF' establishment in first 11years of the project, with the long term storage of waste underground to begin in the 28th year, pg.99.
How big is the proposed South Australian surface ISF expected to get?
(The U.S site it is modeled on, is 3.3 km2)
How many tonnes are expected to be on the surface, and for how long for?
(As I understand it it is expected that in year 11 the ISF will be receiving 3000 t/yr used fuel, at some stage the amount of waste stored in the ISF will reach a plateau, as it starts to be located underground - what is this plateau?)
Is it envisaged that the ISF will need build liquid holding tanks to cool any of the waste or will air cooling be enough?
Will there be a processing plant on the surface to facilitate storage, ie processing the waste into Synroc or by vitrification?
Is the projects viability analysis of A$ 40,000 per m3 based on the waste already being processed before it is received, or unprocessed, with the South Australian plant concentrating its volume?
Or is the economic analysis based upon offering a different price for different types of waste?
What are the security considerations the ISF?
(Given the life of the project, how vulnerable would the facility be in time of war? What is the expected impact of a missile attack on the ISF and on the surrounding environment and populations.)
How much of the projects budget would need to be given over to security concerns, i.e protecting the transit of materials or the ISF from a terrorist group intent on securing material to create a dirty bomb?
What is the risk to the timeline of the project (120 years) having to be extended because of problems with the waste kept in the ISF?
(ie. won't cool down, still emitting gas)
I agree, and who exactly will end up paying the "clean up" bill if additional problems arise? As arguably they will.
Also, what happens if the site is impacted by an earthquake as has recently happened in the Alice Springs area?
Like
(0)
Like
(1)
It appears that there wasnt any legal obligation to take back waste nor has ever been written into any company contracts or governments bilateral agreements. But at the time there did and still does appear to be promoted by some peoples that Australia had a or has a "moral obligation" to take back the radioactive waste. So where did this intangible idea of "moral obligation" come from? If we sell a non-radioactive material overseas to which is then processed do moral obligations automatically appear or exist from and in the source country to accept back that waste? If not - then why does this phenomena of "moral obligation" exist for radioactive waste?
Section 4.3 of the Friends of the Earth submission to the Royal Commission debunks claims that Australia has any moral responsibility to accept waste arising from uranium exports.
http://www.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/NFCRC%20submission%20FoEA%20ACF%20CCSA-FINAL-AUGUST-2015.pdf
Moral responsibility is a concept that is used opportunistically here. If we really have a moral responsibility, it should extend to any potential nuclear refugees. As Australian uranium was used in Fukushima, would the government have felt responsible for an exodus of around 30 million refugees if things had developed as the then PM Naoto Kan feared they might and the whole greater Tokyo area had to be evacuated. PS. Little wonder Kan has gone from supporting the nuclear cycle to becoming one of its strongest opponents.
Like
(0)
Hi Carmel - I doubt the Australian government would feel and act on any moral responsibility to deal with 30 million refugees. The moral responsibility here is not of refugees to this nation due to nuclear proliferation but taking back the waste products of other nations. From whence did this moral responsibility originate that FotE felt necessary to debunk in S 4.3 of their submission?
Like
(0)
Like
(3)
Marilinga atomic test site?
Like
(0)
I am sure that the indigenous would not want this on their land and neither do South Aussies.
The largest earthquake in AUS occured only this month near Alice Springs. Mother Earth is saying NO and so should we.
Like
(1)
Regarding South Australian seismic stability, Prof Mike Sandiford, FAA, Director of Melbourne Energy Institute & Chair of Geology, University of Melbourne, says: "In answer to our question Australia is not the most stable of continental regions, although the levels of earthquake risk are low by global standards. To the extent that past earthquake activity provides a guide to future tectonic activity, Australia would not appear to provide the most tectonically stable environments for long-term waste facilities." http://jaeger.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/msandifo/Policy/nuclear.html
That is an extremely crude analysis by Prof Sandiford, as I am sure he would be the first to admit, only considering continents in their entirety. Someone with his expertise would readily be able to identify geological regions *within* Australia, such as the Gawler Craton, that show no geological evidence of movement for at least the last 500 million years, and no prospect of any for millions more. Moreover, *it doesn't really matter*. There is no reason to expect any reasonably well engineered facility to be unduly affected by even a Tennant Creek-sized event.
Like
(0)
Mark. If a 'well engineered facility' would be 'unduly affected by even a Tennant Creek-sized event': then, according to your *it doesn't really matter*, the Adelaide Geosyncline would suit. Why then does the NFCRC Final Report exclude this precinct based upon seismic activity? And if evidence for 500x10E6 yrs of no seismic activity is readily available, then please share a URL here so that we can have some idea of potential locations. Shouldn't all South Australians have some idea WHERE this suppository could be located before determining whether or not we want it?
Like
(1)
Like
(0)
Hi Alice,
Unfortunately, by your reply, you don't seem to fully understand the full meaning of my original submission. What I tried to explain is that, at this time, seismologists cannot guarantee that any place in Australia is free from large earthquakes for long enough for the radioactive waste to become safe (thousands of years). In the last few decades, peer-reviewed research shows that Australian geological faults can often lie dormant for between 10 and 100 thousand years and suddenly generate large enough magnitude events that could damage such a waste facility. Once radioactive materials leak into the outside atmosphere or water table, the resulting pollution can be disastrous. This is the nature of intraplate seismicity that we have in this country.
Brian
Like
(3)
What evidence has the NFCRC provided that proves South Australia will have a guaranteed geological stability for many future millennia?
What do you think AS1170.4 is used for?
Like
(0)
AS1170.4 is for above ground construction (also including basements) but there are no specific AS for 500M below ground nuclear repositories. Anthropogenic subterranean cavities eg mines are known to increase seismic risk & such varies on a case by case basis. No current Australian Standard quantifies nor qualifies any best practice for 10,000 year radiation containment 500M underground - so an new AS needs to be produced if dump gets green light.
Like
(0)
Like
(1)
What countries would be willing to put billions of dollars upfront before a site has even been confirmed? Where will site identification expenditure funds come from?
The NFCRC report on p103 tells us of a $2.5B deficit for the first 10 years, presumably because of site identification then construction expenditures. Unless the State can give a gold plated guarantee that 1] a site WILL BE found & 2] that a suitable design WILL BE created & 3] that SA is capable of BUILDING that design - then no other country would invest a brass razoo. If the State did not deliver on it's many 'only if' promises then any upfront monies would be refunded. So many unknowns with selling this pig in a poke.
Like
(0)
Like
(0)
John Spoehr (Spoehr, 2 March 2015, The Adelaide Review) expresses surprise when he states, “With the nuclear Royal Commission, the South Australian Government has unexpectedly opened up a debate about our role in the nuclear fuel cycle.”
Other commentators, such as Rowan Forster (Forster, 13 February 2015, Crikey), ask, “Royal commissions usually investigate events after they've happened, so why is the case for nuclear power being put to a royal commission in South Australia?”, and Dave Sweeney (Green & White, 2015), “Unlike most Royal Commissions this one was not a response to a pressing public issue, but rather it is a calculated political initiative with a pro-nuclear agenda…, [a]s a result the Commission looks less like an objective risk-benefit analysis and more an industry feasibility study.”
Premier Weatherill himself said in the Spoehr article, “I don’t think it’ll have the formalities of a Royal Commission we might’ve been familiar with seeing…. There may be some of that, but for the most part it will be an information gathering exercise.”
So, a question for the moderators of this forum, (a) why did the Government choose the mechanism of a Royal Commission when, in the opinion of many commentators, the Terms of Reference read like a feasibility study?; and (b) who did the Premier consult with in order to arrive at that decision?
Cheers, Claudio
Thanks for making these points Claudio. You have identified the elephant in the room. What is the real agenda? Why is a political opportunity dressed up as a royal commission? From the outset it seemed to me that the agenda was to set up a waste dump. The nuclear power and enrichment scenarios were never going to fly.
Like
(1)
Thank you gentlemen, I agree.
I sincerely hope that all South Australians follow your lead and question the epistemology of the process and the findings.
Like
(1)
Like
(4)
Absolutely opposed to this in its entirety.
Like
(1)
NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no NO, no, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no,NO, no, no, no, no, no, to being a waste dump !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IDIOTS !!!!!!!!!!!
Mature contribution to the debate. So No to jobs? No to revenue that this State desperately needs? No new infrastructure? No to taking responsibility for uranium which was originally dug up from South Australia and needs to be stored safely somewhere in the world.
Like
(0)
Mature contribution to the debate. So No to jobs? No to revenue that this State desperately needs? No new infrastructure? No to taking responsibility for uranium which was originally dug up from South Australia and needs to be stored safely somewhere in the world.
Like
(1)
No, no, no, no, no, no ..... to 400+ generations of South Australians inheriting this toxic legacy.
Like
(2)
Tim
Some, if not MOST of that Toxicity comes from SA's UNFORTUNATE
Maralinga Legacy.
State gov't made a VERY BAD decision, in past...
If we don't PUSHBACK against the Commission's
disappointing "No Reactor for You in SA" recom-
mendation, the current or future SA govt may
make ANOTHER VERY BAD DECISION, ie, not to
follow France's & Toronto's example:
Each makes ~80% of its Electricity with Nuclear.
SA can TOP both France AND Toronto, ~ 2030
(as the Commssion hinted, in Tenrative Findings),
ie, by embracing:
+ Safer, Smaller, SA-sized,Affordable Liquid Fuel,
Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs)
Here are some of the ones to Watch:
+ TEI's IMSR (Cf YouTube channel "TerrestrialMSR"
+ TAP's WAMSR (Search YouTube for WAMSR or"Leslie Dewan")
+ ThorCon's MSR Factory (once offered to AU, not Indonesia has an MoU for their MSRs)
Cf app "Thorium" remix's 20+ documentaries (long & short) about MSRs, etc.
Like
(0)
Rod, you must be spent! I agree with every word
Like
(0)
Like
(3)
The Terms of Reference did not call for recommendations. The purpose was to provide a report that would inform Government and community debate on various aspects community debate. The State Government should not accept any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission and should have these removed as they have compromised the process. Why have consultation on Terms of Reference and why have Terms of Reference when these are disregarded or dramatically exceeded? Please remove the recommendations section.
Tim Kelly,
This seriously concerns me, I have not mentioned this before out of respect the our political party and expect this not to be the case. I am getting an increasing feeling they were correct.
I have been told in confidence that the dice has been loaded before the Royal Commission was released, by an individual with long term ties to the Liberal Party. This was separate to find the below document.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/sa-nuclear-royal-commission-is-a-snow-job-18368
I am finding in the Report that there are to many errors or "pie in the sky" logic, critical missing information and assumptions of over compensation i.e
+unrealistic assumptions on revenue - assuming we get a large portion and highest price and that we will not be in a competitive market.
+missing details on transport - where one of the largest risks in the opperations are located.
+Not considering fragmented storage - many smaller storage locations which would have a lower risk profile in the risk event
+Not fully disclosing the commercial risks to the sustainability of the business opportunity (where the largest risk is) - Non Generating Nuclear Power Stations can be used as Waste Facilities, will compete and are already built. More Nuclear Power Plants will be closed in the next 20yrs than will be operation.
+ lack of facts on the industry growth (lack of) and the competing alternative energies, as these are related. You cant look at one without seriously getting informed about the others. Both India and China are leading the way in Renewable Energy.
+ Does not mention the risks of payment are we taking a commercial stance that we get paid up front, what are the industry norms? this single item could bankrupt the entire operation.
+ Does not take into account that Olympic Dam would be a suitable site for waste storage in an adjacent location. As the ground their is almost as hard as steel 900+ meters down. Why not put it back where it came from or near (considering the buffer zone) where it came from. It has the added security advantage of being next to a very large military base.
+ Generally a lot of effort has gone into the report and i feel that these areas we missed not intentionally by the commission.
Solar and Wind energy beat Coal and Gas on a Levelised Costs Basis in September 2015, while still trending to lower costs in 2016. Also beating New and old Nuclear Energy Power Plants, which are increasing in costs against all other forms of energy. As Nuclear risk is beginning to be fully priced in, with more adjustment to come. This is a drying industry on its last legs, major trend is changing direction (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Germanys-Biggest-Utility-Is-Divesting-From-Centralized-Power).
Sorry for being mainly Negative. I feel we are letting ourselves get distracted by this topic and missing real business opportunities to make SA Great. We are talking about spending Billions over 10-15yrs on something that is a long short in my opinion. When we have Car Manufacturing requesting some financial assistance from a government that allows 15+ different car manufactures to import and displace the State Largest Manufacture.
Forgive my passion for South Australia if you may, but i think we need more towards the right causes and not lead by Government. I applaud Jay for providing as all the opportunity for having our say. Please encourage more to do so.
Like
(0)
Each Royal Commission is different and should be guided by the relevant terms of reference. This Royal Commission was proposed as "the first of its kind" to inform community debate. The Terms of reference made no mention of seeking recommendations of any particular way forward, just to report on the investigations in relation to risks and opportunities.
It is not appropriate to just pass this omission off suggesting that "all Royal Commissions make recommendations".
The recommendations of other Royal commissions are guided by directives on how and where recommendations are made. For example, consider the following three Royal Commissions and related TOR extracts:
Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse
“AND We direct you to make any recommendations arising out of your inquiry that you consider appropriate, including recommendations about any policy, legislative, administrative or structural reforms.
AND, without limiting the scope of your inquiry or the scope of any recommendations arising out of your inquiry that you may consider appropriate, We direct you, for the purposes of your inquiry and recommendations, to have regard to the following matters:…”
Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry
(c) taking into account your findings in relation to the matters referred to in the preceding paragraphs and other relevant matters, any measures, including legislative and administrative changes, to improve practices or conduct in the building and construction industry or to deter unlawful or inappropriate practices or conduct in relation to that industry.
Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program
“AND We direct you to make any recommendations arising out of your inquiry that you consider appropriate”.
Given the consultation related to the development of the nuclear RC Terms of Reference and commitment to being open and transparent, the presentation of these very specific recommendations is not consistent with the Terms of Reference and they should be removed. It the South Australian Government wished to put forward proposals for debate in relation to the Royal Commission it could then do so.
Like
(0)
Like
(1)
I agree that it not economic to consider any form of Nuclear power generation from Fission of Uranium on Earth.
I believe that it will always be uneconomic and that no further investment should be made, it is a dead end. Only for power in future space colonies, far from the Sun.
Any energy system based on any fuel cycle has these costs: Cost to find Fuel, cost to dig it up, cost to refine, cost to transport to generator, cost to provide generator and cost of waste disposal (ash in the case of coal for example).
For renewable systems there is only one cost, for the generator - all other costs are zero, and always will be zero.
Renewable technology is advancing fast, so the argument will be over soon in any case.
thanks!
Like
(2)
Corruption... Hopefully that was a little taster (See my comments below) of the history of the dodgy people in the nuclear industry.. they can throw all sorts of facts and theories at us but always remember even so called independent investigations are floored at best.. misleading or just lies... When you are talking Billions the stakes and lies go of the scale.
Like
(3)
Corruption...and the Nuclear fuel industry.. 1997 Forest grove U.S.A ... (BNFL) British Nuclear Fuels Chose this sad little town to set up a Nuclear waste recycling plant.. there Lawyers gave them advice on location.. based on scenic views and churches.. things like that... because areas like that would be harder to fight in courts if it came to that because they would be cashed up. .. At a community meeting to discuss the safety aspects of the site.. one of the companies sweet talkers held up a rock of Uranium hexafluoride UF6 as it is known and implied how safe it was to the towns folk.. knowing that UF6 would Vaporise on contact with humid air. Not all facts are honest and open... Especially when dealing with the Nuclear energy industry..
Like
(2)
Corruption.. and the nuclear industry.... take it lightly at our peril.....
SQ = Seismic Qualification.. nuclear plants need to pass this test before operating approval is granted. This can be from and Earthquake and or a bomb blast. is the nuclear dump going to pass this and how can it be tested for over 1,000 years plus? In 1986 the American engineers who conducted the shake testing for SQ1 qualification at Shoreham power station came back with a failed test result.. but the powers that be told them to go back and adjust the safety figures until it was safe. Stone and Webster the engineering company that built the reactor also built or designed a third of all the reactors in the U.S.
Just think about the people you maybe dealing with who control most of the nuclear industry as a whole.
Like
(2)
My comment is on the following phrase on page 249 of the report:
"The overall goal is to provide evidence that conditions at depth in the
rock will remain more or less as they are today for at least
the next one hundred thousand or a million years."
Comment: The problem is with intraplate seismicity (as in Australia) we have no proven hypothesis to explain its nature, and hence prediction (especially for such long periods of time), is like shooting in the dark!
I don't know who is suggesting sites such as Barndioota, but seismologists all know how active the Flinders Ranges are. So, large events, sufficient to damage containment facilities, will almost certainly happen in this region over these time-frames!
Brian Gaull
Encounter Bay
Like
(1)
I'm imagining the future. Tourists in various parts of the world are thinking about where to go next. "How about Australia", someone says. "No way", is the reply. "That's where all the worlds nuclear waste is dumped. I wouldn't go anywhere near the place". I'm also thinking of the wine and agricultural industries and the jokes that will follow about produce glowing in the dark. Wine labels will need to add "perfectly safe to drink". If you think the arguments over GM foods have been disruptive, that's nothing if SA gets a high level nuclear dump. Gone for ever will be the clean, green marketing image. Just one nuclear incident making the international news will be the stake through the heart for SA and Australia. Yet, some people will do anything for money and the creation of a few jobs. A nuclear dump is a risk we can not afford.
The Commission has earlier Refused to make the 243 Submissions CONVENIENTLY available to the Public, eg, by offering a single ZIP file or access via FTP, etc.
(We had to take on new staff to INDIVIDUALLY download & check 243 separate Submission files. Some had been modified by the Commission, eg, removing Submitter's contact details.)
Biggest issue for us: The Commission, in its wisdom, seemed to want to CONFUSE the Public, by equating Gen.IV reactors with (Fuel Rod based) SMR = Small Modular Reactors.
Thus, the Commission intentionally OMITTED the proven, & substantially better, (Liquid Fuel) MSR = Molten Salt Reactors.
We saw BIAS all across the larger process of informing & persuading Australian about Nuclear options, present & future:
1. Chief Scientist's summary of Science in AU - ie, his book:
+ The Curious Country
Included a single paragraph on (Liquid Fuel) Molten Salt Reactors,
but - beside it - showed a photo of (Fuel Rod based) IFR PRISM - GE-Hitachi's "pipe-dream"
- based on old design (solid Fuel Rod based reactor +
a separate costly sub-system to extract energy from
spent Fuel Rods)
- never-built,
- very costly (both to buld & - from reports - to run, since
GE-H would charge BOTH for the Electricity & Extraction)
- sure lotsa jobs for construction companies. but at what
$$ cost to the rest of us, across its entire Life-Cycle
DURING the Royal Commission's life, would-be spokespeople for Nuclear (as a tool for decarbonising SA), eg, Ben Heard, included a hint of GE-Hitachi's IFR PRISM "dinosaur" on the left side of his Twitter profile, as well as also omitting benefits of Liquid Fuel MSRs from his many (otherwise positive) pro-Nuclear Tweets & pronouncements.
I think SA's Royal Commission has been let down by people with little, if any, knowledge of Nuclear technologies (eg, Heard: an ex OT; the RC's Commissioner: an ex Logistics, albeit Military).
Long before the Royal Commission called for Submissions, I was reliably informed that only WasteDump SA had a chance, & - sure enough - these industry+gov't insiders have been proven right.
THERE IS STILL A CHANCE TO PUSHBACK, eg, & DEMAND that SA build a Safe, Small (Liquid Fuel) Molten Salt Reactor or two.
Let's NOT take:
"Just WasteDump SA & pay whatever interstate
Electricity Generators may charge in future, for our Electricity"
lying down!
Like
(0)
Like
(1)
I'd be interested in a list of environment-threatening accidents at Lucas Heights. It is important that this debate rely on facts, not emotion. If the facts (and the science) indicate a problem, then there is one; it must be recognised and factored into a decision. Otherwise... Well, let's just rely o the facts.
Like
(0)
Bjorn Kunzel
28 May 2016
We DO NOT NEED NOR WANT NUCLEAR POWER!!!!!!!!!
I contribute over $50k pa in TAXES as I am a high income earner. I will move my family to a different state if you introduce nuclear power.
1) it is an old technology.
2) solar is far cleaner, far more sensible and this is the direction we should be heading.
3) We do NOT want to live in a nuclear waste dump.
I am 100% opposed to nuclear in any way shape or form and we the people want SOLAR FARMS!!!!!
Steven McColl > Bjorn Kunzel
01 Jun 2016
Emotionally charged comment. Are you and engineer?
1) Generation IV technology is not old nor is the S9G reactor in the General Electric powered SSN-774 which has a 'refueling period' exceeding the life of the submarine 'old technology'.
Meanwhile Generation IV reactors are the only type of nuclear reactor that operate at atmospheric pressure and has an outlet coolant temperatures high enough (around 850 deg. c) to facilitate hydrogen production.
Thorium-232: Australia has around one-third of the world's Thorium-232. Thorium-232 doesn't need enrichment.
Thorium-232 doesn't go bang.
And Thorium-232 can also be used in the Molten Salt Reactor (which can also receive actinide feeds).
2) Solar: Solar has its advantages but there is no control over the timing or magnitude of energy input - further solar requires the voltage to be stepped up many times from the tiny nacelle in each tower before reaching around 330kV to allow for long distance transmission.
3) eeer we don't actually live in a waste dump - if you would read the report you will see exactly how and by what engineering risk assessment would facilitate the storage of Uranium-238.
S.A. is on one of the world's largest uranium deposits (U308) and how do you think the heat from the earth's core is generated?
3) Are you an Electrical engineer? please see (1) above.
I have some questions for you:
Why is it that all U.S. and U.K, submarines are fueled by Uranium-235?
Why is it that Lucas heights uses Uranium-235?
Why is it that the Voyager and other satellites uses a nuclear battery so your good self can use 'Google earth' and get good weather forecasts?
Why is it that Geotechnicians use nuclear densiometers to measure the density of compacted-fills during freeway construction so your good self can drive a car on?
Not interested.
Steve Walker > Bjorn Kunzel
01 Jun 2016
I can't think of a way to give you a slow hand clap for all your technical superiority ... well that told all of us just to bend over and take it... we can I am sure create a very safe environment to encapsulate the low level waste but there is only 1 reason why it cannot and should not be done.. Government, independent governing bodies, scientists and there reports all history proves are corrupt.. and the money is so big that the corruption will be huge... you only have to look at the history of the whole nuclear industry and there lies, cover ups factually incorrect statements to realise they cannot be trusted at any stage of nuclear operations.
Steven McColl > Bjorn Kunzel
01 Jun 2016
Your sarcasm says a lot more about you than me and highlights how vastly ignorant your are on this topic.
Thank you for reading my reply to your emotionally charged post.