The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Mixed motives in South Australia's nuclear waste import plan > Comments

Mixed motives in South Australia's nuclear waste import plan : Comments

By Noel Wauchope, published 23/8/2016

The message from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (NFCRC) is clearly a plan to make South Australia rich, by importing foreign nuclear wastes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Her notion that the the government is influenced by climate sceptics is absurd. Hunt and Turnbull are right up with the rest of the greenies on the subject. And, renewable energy is not "that great".
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:49:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm surprised that the RC made foreign waste their main recommendation. Commissioner Scarce later clarified by saying foreign interests should put up most of the money, estimated at $40 bn in their report. After the sub snub one of those countries won't be Japan. In any case I strongly believe that nuclear countries should keep the unwanted leftovers on their home soil not try to fob it off.

Having said that SA could probably do it cheaper than other countries. In the Woomera restricted area there will be discontinued tunnels at Challenger and Prominent Hill mines. The actinides to be buried there may have originated as U235 at nearby Olympic Dam. I do agree that SA should do reprocessing and higher burnup with a Candu or as yet uncommercial 4th generation reactor.

Barring further developments it looks like the cheapest nuclear baseload will come from clusters of large light water reactors like the AP1000. These could be in the Hunter and Latrobe valleys noting the 2 GW Liddell NSW coal station is due to close in 2022. SA could do the fuel reprocessing and would need a small high level repository just for Australian waste. Get that going then think about foreign waste.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 1:04:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are Noel.

You have inadvertently set out good arguments for a nuclear waste dump (+ small modern reactor research) in South Australia.

I always wondered: "How and where in the world can a waste dump gain $Billions in profit".

Noel by saying: "However, the significance remains. Once Australia has set up a nuclear waste importing industry, the nuclear reactor salesmen of USA, Canada, South Korea, will have an excellent marketing pitch for South Asia, as the nuclear waste problem has been removed from their shores.. And South Asia is exactly the market that the NCRC has in its sights. "

So it is the "salesmen of USA, Canada, South Korea" will will pay $Billions to a South Australian waste dump because the waste dump is a technical/regulatory/political prerequisite for them to build reactors overseas and even in Australia.

Thanks for the pro-nuclear arguments.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 1:25:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
from Noel Wauchope
At least one of my critics is asking me "What is my problem?" regading nuclear power and nculear waste importing
I don't normally say something insulting , and certainly don't mean to.

But what first came to my mind, in answer, is that famous statement by Bill Clinton:

IT's THE ECONOMY, STUPID!
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 1:35:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IN answer to Plantagenet. Let us suppose that the South Australian nuclear waste importing business IS, after all, a profitable venture.

It would be better if it were developed by private enterprise. That way, the State could get some royalties, without taking the huge risks involved. A very big risk is of the State being left with "stranded" canisters of high level nuclear waste, that cannot ever be returned to sender.

If private enterprise took the risks, - much better for South Australians. Oh, but I forget, no private company would take it on, and there would be no chance of them getting insurance. South Australia would need to have some version of the USA's notorious Price Anderson Act, making sure that the tax-payers take all the risk.
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 3:05:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Noel Wauchope: So, the only reason for South Australia to develop a massive nuclear waste management business is to make money. If it's not profitable, then it shouldn't be done.

Nuclear Waste Facility. What a great way to bolster Australia's Bottom Line.

The Anti-Nuclear lobbyists will be screaming in their beds. "Noooooo!"

Australia could solve a lot of problems with storing the Worlds Nuclear Waste.

1. They pay Australia to take the Waste of their hands.
2. They pay for the ongoing Maintenance of the Nuclear Site.
3. Australia owns the Nuclear Waste.
4. The Nuclear Waste in in a Secure Location where it can't go missing or get stolen.
5. The Aboriginal get compensated for their Land with Schools, Work & a University, taking The Aboriginal people out of the Stone Age into the Nuclear in one hit on their own Traditional Lands.
6. The dedicated to find ways of utilizing Nuclear Waste for the benefit of Man.
7. The Research belongs to Australia.
8. The Technology can then be sold or Leased out to benefit Australia's Financial bottom line.

Ok. It's not a short term gain which it seems interests the Accountants mostly, <If it's not profitable, then it shouldn't be done.> but this idea will pay big Dividends in the end.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 3:17:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy