A citizen's jury! what a joke. Why not simply design policy by flipping a coin?

Hi Silly Sausage,
We have a little thing in this country called democracy. If you don't like a policy, I urge you to step out of the shadows and identify yourself so you, as a citizen of a democracy, can have your say.

We don't pay much attention to anonymous trolls, I'm afraid, even those who invent qualifications.

We don't pay much attention to wife beaters that can't differentiate between democracy and a political stunt.

SS,

I can't claim to understand your second post, at all.

Craig,

On anonymity, Noel Wauchope is not the lady's real name, either. I think you will find that she is really Christina Mac, a notorious activist on everthing. And, we don't really know that you are Craig Minns, do we?

It would have been rather hard for SS to engage in the democratic process, even if he is South Australian. The 'citizen' jury' was drawn out of a hat, so who knows whether or not they represent the views of around 1.7 million people.

I think there was enough evidence for the government to legitimately make the decision itself, but our gutless little monkey of a premier wants someone else to make the decision for him. SA is probably neck and neck with Victoria in the race to be the shonkiest collectivist "progressive" state in the country.

Off subject, but important to know, the Weatherill government, just last week, blocked the Auditor General from access to information that would have allowed him to see if the goverment was spending money wisely or not. 'Or not' seems to be the answer that we have all suspected for a long time.

An ethical case? How about an irrefutable one? It's easy to make out a case against anything to do with nuclear based on rock solid redoubtable ignorance! Where alpha radiation like that used in targeted life saving cancer treatment, confused with deadly gamma radiation!

And where the same folk who indubitably hold fast with rigorous determination to flat earth science! And where they would prefer that the average American burns the equivalent to 54 barrels of oil to satisfy their energy needs, when just one cup of uranium oxide would met those same energy requirements or just 4 grams of thorium!

The cup of uranium needs enrichment and then pressure vessel containment to hold back "steam" pressure when violently released, lifting a 400 ton roof off of the Chernobyl containment building!

Thorium needs no enrichment, is less radioactive than a banana, used in safe molten salt reactor needs no pressure containment, given it operates at normal atmospheric pressure, with walk away safe design features. Energy dense Thorium is abundant and is easily recovered with simple gravity separation and ready as is!

Then we can use thorium powered molten salt reactors to burn nuclear waste, turning it into copious free power as we do so, while other folk pay us billions for our endevour! And burn and burn it in the cycle until the completely depleted waste has a half life of just 300 years and most importantly can never ever be used to build a thermonuclear bomb!

Moreover, just 8 grams of thorium is enough to power your car and without refueling for 100 years, and if adopted by the world as their principle energy source could WIPE OUT the fossil fuel industry, including coal, N.G. and current nuclear technology!

The latter made entirely unaffordable due to safety/decommissioning etc/etc requirements, the amount of fuel burnt (5%) in relation to the waste produced. (95%) Whereas thorium reaction burns (95%), leaving just (5%), vastly less toxic waste, eminently suitable for long life space batteries!

Hence the highly reactive/survival motivated, political activist/hysteria/terror campaign!?
Alan B.

I am a member of the Citizen's Jury. For me the "under what circumstances" condition is all about a community driven decision. South Australians have not had the opportunity to consider a range of possible options for our future. We have been handed one "industry driven" option and told that we need to do this or we will go broke.

I believe that local communities need to determine their own future. The South Australian future needs to be decided by South Australians for South Australians. If after a deep and genuine community engagement process, my South Australian community said that we felt there was a case for importing HL nuclear waste, then I would work with my community to consider the social, technological, economic and ethical issues.

South Australians did not want a uranium mine. South Australians did not want to be guinea pigs for nuclear testing. These activities have been foisted upon us against our will and against our better judgement.

While I whole-heartedly share your vision for a nuclear free world and the push to stop generating this hazardous material which we clearly have no solution for, as a South Australian I object to being offered up in a bid to achieve this objective. We - indigenous and non-indigenous South Australians have a right to determine our our future. We no longer want to be played as pawns in a global nuclear tussle, however ethical and noble the option of taking the material may seem to non South Australians.

I'm surprised that the RC made this their main recommendation. Recent events suggest SA could do with a small to medium size nuclear power plant as replacement for imported or local coal baseload. When built it would be cheaper than gas baseload. Commissioner Scarce later clarified the $40.2 bn estimated cost of the waste facility saying foreign customers would put up the capital cost upfront, presumably as well as on ongoing fees. Later statements suggested spending $2.4bn a year for 10 years, presumably from the Australian public purse.

Japan is going broke paying for gas imports and will fail to meet emissions targets. They are also investigating building a MOX plant for reprocessing spent fuel as well as a geological repository for unusable waste. After the submarine rebuff I'd think they want little to do with SA.

However I think SA could build a repository much cheaper than other countries. Use the depleted Challenger Mine in the fork of the Adelaide-Darwin and Adelaide-Perth rail lines. Start small with home grown nuclear waste. If Hazelwood and Liddell coal plants are replaced by light water nuclear baseload plants then SA could reprocess the spent fuel in a heavy water (Candu) or 4th generation reactor. If that goes well in the public's mind then maybe think about taking in foreign waste 20 years from now.

Answer to ttbn from Noel Wauchope.

You have got it all wrong. My name IS Noel Wauchope, and I am not notorious on activism nor on anything else. My middle names ARE Christina Macpherson, and I adopted those names some years ago, tweeting as ChristinaMac1 only because I did not want any embarrassment in my then rather responsible job.

So I don't know where you got your facts on my "anonymity", but I think that you need to do your homework better.

To Trisha Dee from Noel Wauchope

I completely respect your comments about South Australia being offered up as a guinea pig, or as some sort of sacrificial place for taking in Japan's nuclear wastes. Indeed, I regret mentioning South Australia in this context.

I should have just said "Australia", as, in the extremely unlikely event of such an ethical choice being made, there is no reason at all why that State should be singled out as the host of another country's radioactive trash.

I don't seriously believe that this kind of ethical decision would ever come to pass. I was really trying to show the unethical nature of the Weatherill government's nuclear waste import plan, as well as the eye-boggling economic risks of it.

From Philip White of Friends of the Earth Adelaide

The idea of helping other countries shut down there nuclear industries by accepting their nuclear waste might have some theoretical appeal—some sort of global solution to the nuclear waste problem that involves exiting from nuclear power around the world—but it is not anywhere near the current reality and the nuclear industry would just try to have its cake and eat it. It would twist any well meaning agreement to its own purposes and leave us with the waste without the desired exit from nuclear power.

We dig up and export uranium as yellow cake. When we could export is as ready to use power grade, enriched uranium, (fuel rods,) which we could take back when depleted to reprocess, burn, burn and burn again and again, until all the available energy inherent in that nuclear waste had been extracted and distributed as ridiculously cheap power via slow breeder reactors! (Walk away safe molten salt thorium) And have other nations pay us billions as we do so, for services rendered!

Leaving completely depleted waste, with a half life of just 300 years!

And even with any and all foreseen known unknowns, unknown knowns known knowns, unknowable unknowns, diverse difficulties, even village idiots like us could safely store that stuff in abandoned/worked out, uranium mines say, for 300 years!?

We invented the vastly cheaper pulsed laser light method of uranium enrichment! Yet continue to export yellow cake! Which could still be enriched to weapons grade or used to make plutonium, both of which can be used in thermonuclear devices! Neither of which could happen if we took back the depleted fuel rods!

And as an a major exporter of uranium, our manifest ethical responsibility/duty!

Moreover, given current mindless outcomes, typical of the dig it up and sell mindset of our, give it and all the inherent advantages away, (useful Idiots) leaders. When nothing we export to the rest of the world should leave here, without some measure of very doable value adding!

And then we wonder why Australia always needs foreign capital, and indeed the foreign masters who come part and parcel with it?

IT'S TIME to cut all those apron strings and chart our own course/make or own decisions, rather than allow others, wrong headed political activists and a highly manipulated market to do it for/to us!
Alan B.

Noel,

Well, I've still got the same person, have I not? You can be Noel or Christina. A bit 'slippery' of you! You are best known as Christina Mac, notorious activist, where I live. Can't think why you are "embarrassed" by your own opinions, and need to hide your identity on certain occasions.

The Dee person might - or might not- be a member of the citizens' jury, but she has revealed her anti-nuclear stance for us. I wonder if she is prepared to advise us how so few people on this joke jury can decide for all South Australians. We didn't vote for them, and don't know them from a bar of soap. I also wonder if she is using her real name so that I can track her down, and make representation to the government concerning her bias, and her idealogical idiocy of being against nuclear power, full stop.

In reply to ttbn

Not only do you not do your homework in checking on my my identity, but you also show a poor understanding of how a person's political activism or published opinions can affect their reputation in the workplace.

If one is working in a responsible job in a conservative institution, the fact is that such activity can lead to difficulties, and indeed, to dismissal. That was the sole reason why I used my middle names "Christina Macpherson", rather than my real name (which you don't believe anyway, so why do I bother?) Noel Wauchope

First and foremost, a juror is allegedly an ethical person who makes a judgement on the assembled facts! Not preconceived emotive value judgement derived from assumptive conjecture, or manifest fact free dogma and ideology!

Trial by jury is supposed to be just that! Rather than trial by running the gauntlet, where the subject needs to tolerate repeated blows by adversaries determined to ensure failure! And double the length of the gauntlet each time some stray fact manages to make it through!

Even so, impossible to see if you're blindfolded; or in the case of the anti nuclear brigade, willfully blind!
Alan B.

Oops, forgot to warn you, Noel Christina MacPherson Wauchope, that any one reading your culturally Marxist tracts could now find out where you ply your "rather responsible job" and "embarrass" you. Not that I am such a person, of course. I don't mind how silly other people are.

I applaud you for having the courage of your convictions, Noel. It's a shame that in this country there are people who would go out of their way to try to threaten others for expressing their views.

ttbn, I'm disgusted in that last comment and I'm sure you will be too once you think about it.

If we aren't able to express ourselves freely we are lost as a nation.Hateful trolls spouting nonsense, whatever their politics are a serious threat to the democratic right to free expression.

Already on this thread we've had one disgusting excuse for a human being doing his best to shut down a view he doesn't like by making up defamatory slurs about me. What a world. What a pissweak pissant.

Craig,

What have you taken offence at. My suggestion that someone could track her down and dob her in to her employer to embarrass her, or that I certainly would not be the one to do that because I'm not concerned, nor offended by, other people who say silly things. Look at you. You don't offend me in the least. Of course people are entitled to express their views without fear, even if those ideas are potty and immature.

Why the irrelevance of "Citizens' Juries"?
We have them already; they are known better as elections.

We also have a massive, geologically stable country with a marketable commodity which many other countries crave - space.
So let's monetarise a massive advantage and get into nuclear waste management. We'd do it well.

Taswegian: A molten salt reactor is so much safer than an old technology, light water reactor! It's hard to know where to begin? Save a tsunami could wash over a molten salt thorium reactor, and the walk away safe reactor would safely drain out into a purpose built repository, where the salt would safely crystallize.

And given a molten salt reactor works at normal atmospheric pressure, no need for containment either in the reactor or building!

Whereas, a light water reactor may have to work at a mind boggling 1,000 atmospheres and need both containment vessel and a seriously hardened building! Which adds quite massively to the cost!

Plus, continual wide eyed around the clock operators immediately ready for any number of possible malfunctions, some of which may include a significant irradiation event or multiple fatalities! Ditto molten metal fast breeder reactors! The latter using plutonium!

Neither of which anyone with a still functioning brain would advocate? Either on massive roll out costs, deplorable safety record or prohibitive decommissioning costs!

And that's before you factor in the security levels required to keep the inevitable waste falling into hostile hands! Which by the way, could be made safer just by reprocessing it time and again in molten salt thorium slow breeder reactors.

I'd have/welcome a thorium reactor in my backyard, but none of the others!
Alan B.

Trisha Dee is a prime example of why a citizen's jury is a complete joke.

Her weasel words "If after a deep and genuine community engagement process, my South Australian community said that we felt there was a case for importing HL nuclear waste, then I would work with my community to consider the social, technological, economic and ethical issues." are followed by an ideological statement clearly showing that there is no chance of her finding a case for any nuclear industry.

This is just a show trial where the outcome is predetermined, and a pretext for Wetherill to kybosh yet another business opportunity before extending the begging bowl to Canberra again.

Alan B you can go out and buy a Candu reactor for about $5 bn but you cannot buy a molten salt reactor for love nor money. China is proposing a fuel cycle of one Candu for every four light water reactors. If molten salt reactors do everything they promise that's great but there are some big engineering problems to overcome first.

The whole country needs a education in nuclear energy, not just Trisha Dee, who's mind is clearly closed and made up.

Following recent events, South Australians now fully grasp that their faith in renewables is underpinned by dirty brown coal burning for them in Victoria or that the alternative, massive gas reticulation and turbine 'backup', would actually power them most of the time and not just during RE failure. (In Ontario adding wind with gas backup raises emissions and is a reason it's ceased installation, besides the rising electricity cost to consumers)

Our state by state approach is an ad hoc way to deal with national carbon reduction, IMO. If Victoria went nuclear when its brown coal burners are retired would South Australia say no to interconnection on principle? It's too easy for states to say "not in my backyard" (like Germany) while other states produce the baseload. Even running 100% on renewables occasionally (like Germany) is reliant on another state always having thermally produced electricity on standby.

South Australia has everything at it's disposal to power the eastern seaboard with nuclear power, and to accept waste. It is sad to see the unwillingness of SA ideologues like TD to even contemplate their great fortune at this fact.

What Oz and SA needs exposure to is not a balance of views for and against nuclear power/waste storage, but the truth.

Noel Wauchope,

I missed your Tuesday post telling me that I don't believe you because I allowed myself to be distracted by trivia, and used up my posting limit for the day.

I believe the your real name is Noel Wauchope, and you use Christina Mac to hide your radical views from your conservative employer. I understand that. Your conservative employer would be, at least, disappointed to find that you are regularly preaching against conservative policies and values.

OK, no concern of mine. You are obviously able to reconcile your conscience in a way known only to you ; I couldn't manage that feat because I am a conservative with a working conscience, but your mind is your own. The only problem I have, is that I can never take you seriously again.

Re Ontario, which I mentioned above, see page 15 of https://www.ospe.on.ca/public/documents/presentations/ontarios-electricity-dilemma.pdf

Craig,

I apologise if my second post might infer that you were responsible for domestic violence.

I look forward to debating you in a calm and considered manner.

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes.
- Noel Wauchope. Tue 25 Oct 2016.

It's late August, since NWS [nuclear waste storage] was most recently discussed here. At the time Wauchope raised contentious issues that required close attention and an implacable diligence in the search for valid answers. The reader should not be surprised to learn that responses from readers who disagreed exhausted themselves with repetitious pie-in-the-sky assurances whereby SA would be the only state on Earth paved with gold, that a university would be built in central Australia just for the disaffected Aboriginal people and that the waste is a gift, we get to own the bloody stuff. Members Jayb and Tombee were the main progenitors with a nudge from member Alan B.

I respectfully direct the reader to........

Mixed motives in South Australia's nuclear waste import plan
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18465&page=2
I admit to making a modest contribution to the debate from page 4 onward.

The proposal to use SA as a dump is not new but has received urgent impetus from a nuclear industry desperate for business. Most nations using nuclear power have placed a moratorium on building new plants while there are no viable prospects of ridding themselves of an embarrassing accumulation of nuclear waste. The industry wants someone else to take the problem off their hands. In their proposal they refer to SA as the "importer" of the waste and gleefully emphasize that the waste is free and that it will become SA's property, SA gets to own it. Thus their responsibility becomes the responsibility of a government totally unfamiliar with nuclear waste management.

Thus we have an multi-national industry that defecates all over this planet but does not even have to organise a clean-up.

The USA has large desert areas plus Alaska that are not seismically active, as does Russia in Siberia, as does northern Canada, as does China in the Gobi region and as do the African Sahara states. If untold riches were the only outcome there are plenty of contenders who would have jumped at the opportunity by now.

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes
Noel Wauchope, published 25/10/2016

Let's be clear about this debate. The nuclear power industry is in trouble.

Very few if any new reactors are being built. Governments want the nuclear waste mountain dealt with and are withholding permission to build until that occurs.

The industry is taking the path of least resistance to rid themselves of the problem. They think a bunch of people in a state of far off Australia, having no experience of nuclear power plants [especially their disasters] if offered something like a million dollars each won't take too long to think about it before accepting.

The industry could of course lobby each of the 50 or so nuclear powered nations and try to negotiate deals involving the waste disposal and the building of new plants simultaneously. I'm no expert but I believe that from what I've read here at OLO there is a plant that can eat up piles of waste and reduce its volume to a barrow load of nearly harmless rubble, producing electricity while doing it.

Why is that deal not acceptable?

Experts with a pressing agendum and with billions upon billions of dollars at stake are trying to browbeat John Q Citizen with blandishments and carrots on sticks and true to type doing it not very intelligently with a smug smirk and a glib tongue

If you're offering such a great deal why haven't others grabbed it before this? NWD has been a festering issue for decades.

The most obvious conclusion to be drawn is that the industry is not being completely frank and open in its approach.

FUNDING BENEFITS FROM THE WASTE DUMP

South Australia will no doubt build its nuclear waste dump with Federal Money for Regional Development.

So the South Australian taxpayers won't need to pay.

Instead South Australian workers will benefit from the mining/construction pay.

The Federal Government will benefit from the company tax revenue from the Company Managing the Dump.

Plantagenet would have done well to observe the live streaming of the Nuclear Citizens' Jury - currently available at http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/livestreams/citizens-jury-two-video-library/

Richard Denniss has just demolished the economic case for the waste import plan. His speech will be available later on that site. He points out, among other things, that the "economic" modelling for the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission South Australia (NFCRC) is no more than a very optimistic form of guesswork. No private investor would be willing to join in this cranky plan. There is no competition from other countries. The clear economic path is for countries that host nuclear generation to store their own wastes.

The very likely outcome of the NFCRC plan would be for South Australia to be stuck for hundreds of years with costly "stranded" radioactive wastes above ground.

SM,
I accept your apology. It's very easy to forget that we are dealing with real people on sites like this, not just chimeras created in one's mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr4-hICWpdQ

Pogi,

I don't know where you are getting your information but there are 443 reactors running in the world and 63 in various stages of construction, and the next decade is going to more reactors coming on line since the 80s. In addition most existing reactors are undergoing upgrades.

In the USA there are plans for five new reactors, beyond the five under construction now.

In Finland, construction is now under way on a fifth, and plans are progressing for another large one to follow it.

France is building a similar 1600 MWe unit at Flamanville.

In the UK, four similar 1600 MWe units are planned, and a further 6000 MWe is proposed.

Romania's second power reactor istarted up in 2007, and plans are being implemented for two further Canadian units.

Slovakia is completing two 470 MWe units at Mochovce.

Belarus is building two large new Russian reactors at Ostrovets.

In Russia, several reactors and two small ones are under active construction, and one recently put into operation is a large fast neutron reactor. About 25 further reactors are then planned.

Poland is planning two 3000 MWe nuclear power plants.

South Korea plans to bring a further further four reactors into operation by 2018, and another eight by about 2030.

Japan has two reactors under construction

In China, over 20 more reactors are under construction, including the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 units.

India has 21 reactors in operation, and six under construction.

Pakistan has third and fourth 300 MWe reactors under construction at Chashma, financed by China.

In Iran a 1000 MWe PWR at Bushehr came on line in 2011, and further units are planned.

The United Arab Emirates is building four 1400 MWe reactors by 2020.

Jordan has committed plans for its first reactor, and is developing its legal and regulatory infrastructure.

Turkey has contracts signed for four 1200 MWe Russian nuclear reactors at one site and four European ones at another.

Vietnam has committed plans for its first reactors at two sites (2x2000 MWe).

Hi Noel

No experts are in a position to "demolish the economic case for the waste import plan" because future trends are too hard to predict.

In more detail, the future economic viability of an Australian waste dump depends on so many uncertainties that no government, "experts", businesses, engineers, landowners, aborigines, Citizens Jury, or environmental lobby can predict economic viability. For example the economics of a future dump in Australia depend on future movements in demand/prices/developments of:

- numbers of reactors functioning and new reactors soon to operate (altering the quatities of waste)

- new reactor types (altering the types and grades ("medium" to "high") of waste

- competing waste dumps (eg. built in Russia and China)

- actual locations/countries operating reactors, eg. Japan, France and the US may tend to export more waste to Australia than China & Russia which have (or will build) cold desert dumps

- incidence of major reactor failures/disasters, which close down large parts of the reactor market eg. Fukushima

- Uranium quantities, production, demand, and

- cost & demand for competing energy sources. Higher cost of competing energy will make nuclear reactors and waste dumps more attractive

So I agree all is "guesswork". A Federal Government paid waste dump may fail economically, mainly perform as an unprofitable international goodwill service, or econimically succeed.

BTW While I disagree with most of your positions I reckon you're doing a great job presenting the No Nuclear case :)

Pete

Shadow Minister's list of new nuclear reactors, or more correctly, reactors supposedly to be built, sounds so good.

He starts off with USA - not mentioning the reality there that nuclear reactors are shutting down much faster than the one or two that are getting built. Not mentioning that the reason for closures is the diseconomics of nuclear power. It has no hope of surviving in USA unless the tax-payer takes over the funding.

He then cites Finland and France, where the Olkiluoto and Flamanville projects still struggle with their huge over budget costs, and with the safety flaws in the AREVA design.

He then moves on to the European countries where the reactors are being built by Russian State owned companies - so clearly not a problem economically, being tax-payer funded.

South Korea is struggling with its wastes problem, and with public opposition to nuclear power. China - no problem - the taxpayer's up for nuclear costs there.

India - struggling with popular opposition. Both India and Japan could be heading away from democracy and towards dictatorship, as their unpopular nuclear power industry is being pushed by their governments.

All the other countries that Shadow Minister mentions are developing their nuclear industries controlled and funded by either China or Russia. In those cases - they are part of a determined push by China, and especially Russia to become the nuclear empires of the world. Russia has just promoted their top nuclear pusher, Sergei Kiriyenko, to a position of political power. He was to come to Australia at one stage, to market Russian nuclear technology here.

Shadow Minister should at least note the difference between nuclear power that is a commercial business (as in USA where it's failing) and nuclear power as a tax-payer funded operation, in countries where the costs and the waste disposal methods are kept secret. There's also the unspoken fact that for "new" nuclear countries, the nuclear reactor is their first step towards nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes
Noel Wauchope, published 25/10/2016

The one thing that people will punish smartarses for is for treating them like dummies and deceiving them with jargon that can be interpreted in several ways. This is what the nuclear lobby has done and is doing. Dr Richard Denniss has revealed the deception in his address to his Citizen's Jury audience.

Prof Mike Young addressed the audience first and painted a rosey picture. He's a very highly qualified and recognised environmentalist scientist boasting a truck load of tenures. He presented a financial model [not an economic model] of the current proposal. He glossed over one or two salient and very relevant points by previously disqualifying himself from all knowledge of nuclear matters. He would have you believe that nuclear nations are busting a gut to heap wealth to an obscene degree all over SA.

Dr Richard Denniss is a very highly respected economist, yes, an actual economist. He was placed to disadvantage from the outset because the organisers had "forgotten" to inform him that Young was to speak instead of the listed expert Prof[?] Tim Johnson. Unprepared for the switch, the good doctor did a remarkably efficient job of demonstrating how devious the nuclear lobby has been in preparing their case which had much to do with leaving points unexplained so that an averagely intelligent audience can jump to conclusions or conclude incorrectly or make assumptions that did not necessarily follow and which would have been obvious were the points properly elaborated. The organisers had in fact originally led him to believe that he was to debate the author of the Jacobs Report. Denniss did a great job of exposing the deceit by laying out in simple terms and graphics the issues as they were not explained by Young and the Nuclear Lobby.

Experts who will never be called to account for it are lying by omission to the public. Politicians are pulling the strings. Cont....

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes
Noel Wauchope, published 25/10/2016

....Cont
The organisers of this talkfest is a firm called Democracy Co. Their host [Emily] for the hour's session of expert testimony addressed the group about everyone putting their thinking caps on, thinking critically, listening closely, weighing up the pros and cons etc, etc, as patronising a lecture as I have ever heard. She waffled for just over 32 minutes of the hour. What information she did impart was already available in all the printed material handed out to the members of the jury. The experts divided 28 minutes between them.

Question time was to be hosted after lunch and was limited to 6 minutes for each expert.

Just from watching the Young/Denniss presentation it's not hard to see that this whole thing is an expensive exercise in futility. Democracy Co is partnered with a state government that cannot see beyond the trivialities and the pile of gold on offer. The manner in which the lectures have been arranged will ensure that no juror will see every lecture before the vote is taken and the decision becomes irrevocable.

I was deeply involved in the 1980s in the Plant Variety Rights [PVR] issue and attended talkfests like this. They are set up to reach a conclusion the government wants. If you ask an awkward question and press for a relevant answer your raised hand is ignored for the entire session. Verbally protesting your rights at a public meeting will ensure you are accused of disrespect to the chair and escorted to the nearest exit.

I respectfully and earnestly request that all who are interesed in this issue view the video to which I refer. Of those on offer choose the one titled: LIVESTREAM CLIP: Citizens' Jury Two - Welcome to day 3. The names of the two protagonists are in the brief commentary below this title. If you like, skip Emily's time-consuming flap-doodle and begin viewing at 25m:30s

Noel,

Nothing is as irritating as someone that doesn't bother to read my post then writes complete rubbish in rebuttal.

There are more than 60 reactors in the world physically being built now, with 5 of them (not one or two) in the USA. While there are more reactors being closed in the short term, these are very old and typically very small reactors whereas the new reactors are more than 2x the size. The number of reactors planned for about 2030 is close to 200. Add to this the reactors that Japan is restarting and, by 2020 there will be more power generated by nuclear plants than ever before.

Given the dismal failure and cost of renewable power as demonstrated in South Australia, there will come a point when further reduction in the use of fossil fuels will require reliable base load generation of which only nuclear power is GHG free.

Nuclear waste is *not* the problem, it's the *solution!* If we just built breeder reactors like Russia is doing, America has enough nuclear waste to run her for 1000 years and the UK has enough for 500 years! Russia just opened their BN-800 breeder, and are building 2 really large BN-1200's soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

BN1200 = 1.2GW = as large as many coal power plants.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Russia-to-build-11-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2030-10081602.html

Breeders can burn bomb grade plutonium and today's stores of nuclear 'waste'. It’s all in the book Dr Hansen recommends, “Prescription for the planet!” (Download it FREE here from Dr Hansen's Science Council website).
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

WHAT ABOUT THE FINAL WASTE?
Easy! Once we've burned all the transuranics away, we finally get down to the real nuclear waste called fission products. This stuff is so 'hot' it only stays dangerous for 300 years! That's great news, and if we just vitrify it (melt it down into glass-like ceramics) it is really easy to deal with by burial under the reactor-park. If the entire world was run on clean, emission free nuclear power, the whole world's waste would only fill one barge every 2 years. Spread over the planet's nuclear energy parks, you can see that higher level waste can be stored in very small bunkers under the reactor park.

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes
Noel Wauchope, published 25/10/2016

I would like to make something clear that is not immediately apparent.

I am not in opposition to nuclear generators or nuclear power.

I do vehemently oppose the nuclear industry's attitude that someone else provide a solution to a problem for which they alone are responsible and the deception they use to sell the idea. When has dangling the prospect of vast riches before a politician not succeeded in garnering his attention and subsequent loyalty?

One or two questions I have asked here and in the August topic were also raised by Dr Denniss in his address. None has been responded to.

The most obvious conclusion to draw is that if honest answers were provided they would be inimical to the nuclear industry's case.

Plantagenet has questioned the portrayal of the nuclear industry as desperate for new business. If this minor contretemps is indicative of anything it demonstrates that in this issue at least nothing is as simple as it seems. Scratching the surface to see where the truth resides in opposition to implacable self-interest is never a simple nor easy exercise.

The seeking of unfair and inequitable influence should always be opposed. If in doing so resort is made to the same tactics as one's opponent then their protests should fall on deaf ears.

My deepest apologies go to Plantagenet for naming him as an opponent when in truth it is Shadow Minister whom I should have identified.
At my age I should be allowed a senior moment but not if it impinges on such an important issue.
Again, my apologies Plantagenet.

I don't care much whether or not South Australians decide to take nuclear material from around the world. However, if it's deemed safe enough to do so in principle, and is much more profitable than any other investment, why not?. The principle needs to be dealt with before the economics, which are a matter for parliament to decide. Economics should not be argued as a point for or against the principle by the jury.

The status quo argument that if your unsure don't vote for it, will win the day, IMO, as many people are incapable of coming to a personal decision over serious matters, whatever the evidence is before them.(I was once chairman of a jury where two of the jurors said they could not decide as they were not present when the alleged offence was committed. Geez!)

If Victoria went nuclear and provided SA with essential baseload (as now) it could expect SA to accept waste. I would enjoy seeing a "Hypotheticals" episode on this. It's also ridiculous to think that, on "principle", SA would happily waste more money on renewables while interconnected to as much emission-free Victorian nuclear electricity as it wants.

The "not in my backyard principle" stands in the way of the one true national solution to emissions. To that end I believe the principle of safe waste storage in all states, not just SA.

Hi Pogi

No worries mate.

Having written 3,295 OLO comments over 11 years http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=18967&show=history
I've seen much more sin.

Regards

Pete

In Ontario, nuclear and hydro and coal provided the electricity before this great idea that going a bit green with renewables backed by gas would replace coal and be a less a less fearful path.

Ontario reached a cross-road in cost vs emissions. See here: https://www.ospe.on.ca/public/documents/presentations/ontarios-electricity-dilemma.pdf
What was the whole point of being a little less pregnant with nuclear? France is going the same way.

Surely you don't have to be bright to see that renewables backed with gas is not going to impact on AGW, and that abundant storage is a chimera. SA's current reliance on dirty Victorian electricity, to be replaced by supposedly clean gas, followed by storage, is a futile contribution to emissions abatement, about as futile as Ontario's, and all based on fear.

The whole debate comes down to whether nuclear waste can be stored safely, or we accept AGW. It does not ven rely on the development of fast breeder reactors to minimize and produce short-lasting waste, which is not a chimera.

The fear-mongers will win the day in SA, IMO, and will have done their bit for AGW.

Pogi, Plant, et al

The simplest requirements to get a rational decision from this exercise is to select jurors that haven't prejudged the outcome and to ensure that "witnesses" provide factual correct information. It would appear that no attempt has been made to meet either of these prerequisites.

Trisha Dee the supposed Juror, as clearly made up her mind before she started, and some of the witnesses are clearly biased. A clear example of this would be Dr Richard Denniss who is an accomplished economist, but also a member of the greens who come out in a rash whenever nuclear power is discussed. If Denniss "demolished" the economic case for the nuclear storage facility as Noel declared, he would not only need to be an economist but a psychic too, as the costs and income have not even been discussed with the potential clients.

Secondly, high level wastes radiation diminishes rapidly, after 40 yrs the radiation level has already dropped by 99.9%, and after another 100 yrs it drops by nearly the same magnitude, to the point where it should not be handled, but is not a deadly threat, and the land area required would be the size of several rugby fields to contain nearly the entire world's high level waste.

Thirdly, the reason Australia is ideal for storage is that it is geographically an politically stable, and has large unused tracts of dry land with solid granite substrate which ideal for safely storing waste.

However, the biggest threat to the business is the adoption of nuclear waste recycling as done by France and Japan.

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes
Noel Wauchope, published 25/10/2016

Luciferase writes: "I don't care much whether or not South Australians decide to take nuclear material from around the world. However, if it's deemed safe enough to do so in principle, and is much more profitable than any other investment, why not?"

The second sentence quoted above tells us that you care quite a lot. Just about every objection to this issue is encapsulated in one of the two principles you raise, safety and profitability.

There are some citizens who hold a rather cynical view of politicians and politics and who nurture a distrust born from long years of experience and observation. On an issue where an unbelievably generous bonanza is in the offing if you will only trust the hucksters and politicians, I'm unshakably of the opinion that the scheme is too glib, too simple and too generous for me to grant instant credibility. In other words, there seems to be too much appeal to greed and intellectual laziness in the scheme's design and in the way it has been presented to the public. Patronising assurances are insincere assurances and should alert the receiver to the strong possibility of their being dishonest assurances.

In matters as important, as far-reaching and as lucrative as this it is vital to identify bias and allow for it. There are, I believe, something like 160 individuals giving lectures. All were chosen by Democracy Co, very likely with government and lobby input. The various juries elected, once again I believe, 16 experts in addition to those scheduled. Not all 16 were available. Given these figures, it is virtually impossible to avoid a presumption of perceived bias. It must be admitted that avoiding such perception presents major problems, nevertheless the perception persists. Such bias was an observable fact in the open enquiries over the Plant Variety Rights issue I raised in one of my posts yesterday.

I hope you can find time to view the video that Christina Mac recommended. It is vital for better understanding the issue.

Hi Shadow Minister

Citizen's Juries have only a symbolic ability to change things.

To permit a nuclear waste dump to exist nearby residents, lawyers and voters will demand:

STATE and FEDERAL POLITICIANS to pass new laws and amend old ones to:

1. make a Waste Dump a legal entity

2. permit transportation of low-to-high level waste from ships to ports, then by road or rail to the waste dump.

3. much higher liability insurance schemes in case radiations leaks into the atmosphere, ground, rivers or desert FLOOD WATERS or worse (the water table)

4. More armed guards (able to handle terrorists) for the transport and waste dump.

Security agencies (eg. ASIO, State and Federal Police) will need to beef up their legal powers and manpower resources. This is to prepare for the extra threat profile that a (particularly) high level waste dump will represent.

5. Years to decades of regulatory (eg. environmental) approvals and legal appeals will need to be anticipated through State, Federal and High Courts.

and after all that:

6. Just one of a hundred traditional aboriginal tribal groups (who seem to require total consensus) could veto the WHOLE PROJECT.

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes
Noel Wauchope, published 25/10/2016

Max Green writes: "Easy! Once we've burned all the transuranics away, we finally get down to the real nuclear waste called fission products."

Given your statement of the process is accurate and the entire truth, perhaps you'll clear up a few questions for us.

[1](a) What are transuranics?
(b) What is required to burn them all away?
(c) Does this process produce usable energy? IOW, does it at least pay for itself?

"This stuff is so 'hot' it only stays dangerous for 300 years! That's great news, and if we just vitrify it (melt it down into glass-like ceramics) it is really easy to deal with by burial under the reactor-park"

[2] Are you referring to Synroc as the glass-like deramic? Malcolm Fraser made a laudatory address on this product in the mid 1970s, just after The Coup if my memory is correct. Why has none of the current promoters of "safe storage" spoken of this technology?

"If the entire world was run on clean, emission free nuclear power, the whole world's waste would only fill one barge every 2 years."

[3](a) One miracle at a time please. How long have we been generating clean, emission-free nuclear power? Is this 100% emission-free or 95% emission-free?
(b) If we have not yet achieved this, what is required and how long will it take for the entire planet to do so?
(c) Is this waste the Synroc I referred to above?

In the light of your optimism, may I suggest that the few tonnes of residual waste could be loaded aboard a rocket every couple of months and fired into the sun. Surely if emission-free nuclear power generation should proliferate as expected the distributed cost to each plant would not be prohibitive.

I hope you will appreciate that my cynicism is not directed personally but at the ideas that comprise the whole scheme. To date I have no reason to doubt your sincerity and I would rejoice in the perpetuation of that happy circumstance.

Pogi,

The business risk is completely subject to the safety risk.

The business case is all conjecture, so the jury should simply focus on coming to a decision on safety grounds alone. All the facts on safety are out there and its now a matter of the jury being exposed to them and coming to a position. It will probably be the first time such an interrogation of the subject has taken place. It will be a great bout, "Fear vs Reason", IMO.

Whether or not the economics are "demolished" is determined by parliament, not by speakers at the jury. If it is not deemed profitable after a business case is thoroughly studied and debated, it won't happen. Which countries buy in, future competition, pre-payment, etc., are central. A referendum should be held, which doesn't happen for any other government financial decision.

You say, ".....there seems to be too much appeal to greed and intellectual laziness in the scheme's design and in the way it has been presented to the public." If you think so it will be interrogated via the entire process that leads to a referendum.

The jury came up with a sensible decision http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/citizens-jury-on-sa-nuclear-waste-dump-releases-initial-report/news-story/e76096fa7ec07edcbe18ae0b989683dd

But some can't come at the thought the people might decide through a referendum http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-29/sa-nuclear-dump-decision-delayed-at-labor-state-conference/7977670

Hi Luciferase

The best laid plans/issues set out by Weatherhill will need to include all Australians or SA's current project won't happen.
- Convincing the Federal Senate, with all its Greens and other-cross benchers, will likely be a major requirement.

Noting Weatherhill is pushing the idea of the first nuclear waste dump on the continent of Australia - the say so will need to be extended to votes/laws/referendum encompasasing all Australians.

Much radiactive waste will reach a SA waste dump by:
- crossing the border (by road-rail) from Lucas Heights (NSW),
- or be shipped from a NSW port to a SA port

Also the Federal Government will have a large role in negotiating/legislating the import of nuclear waste into what is a part of Australia.

So, as I've been saying, the best laid plans/issues set out by Weatherhill will need to include all Australians or SA's current project won't happen.

Pete

I am encouraged to read that Trisha Dee is a member of the Citizen's Jury. Here comments that local communities need to determine their own future is the ultimate criterion. However what if Royal Commission evidence for a safer solution had been and was still being, withheld, by the Royal Commission, state and Commonwealth government officers, plus the establishment media, including the Australian's Rebecca Puddy and the ABC?

It would be Trisha reads this and gets back soon via this site!

THE CITIZENs JURY HAS GIVEN A BIG THUMBS DOWN TO STORING WASTE:

Headline "Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission: SA citizen's jury vote against storing nuclear waste"

Claire Campbell of ABC News Online 6 November 2016 - at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-06/sa-citizen%27s-jury-vote-against-storing-nuclear-waste/7999262 reports

Two thirds of a citizen's jury deliberating the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission do not want South Australia to store high-level nuclear waste "under any circumstances".

The jury of more than 300 randomly selected people delivered its 50-page report to Premier Jay Weatherill on Sunday evening after deliberating on the issue across three weekends in October and November.

The report outlined concerns with the economics of the proposal, trust, safety and a lack consent, particularly from Aboriginal elders.

"Many jurors believe we don't have the right to make a decision that will have such long term and irreversible consequences for future generations," the report stated.

Will South Australia follow Finland?

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill travelled to Finland to inspect a nuclear waste dumping system.

"Many jurors say 'no' to the state being a dump due to consent, economics, trust and safety and we should cease spending any further public funds.

"The long-term viability of the project is in doubt as it does not consider new technology providing alternatives for the use of the waste; this undermines the economics to the project."

The verdict is in but the debate is not over."

MORE TO FOLLOW

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:

The verdict is in but the debate is not over

But Premier Weatherill says even though the majority of jurors had voted against the proposal, it was not the end of the debate.

"The status quo is no. This jury doesn't believe the present proposal should be taken forward but we need to take into account a whole range of other broad community views," he said.

"This is what we did this for to understand what exactly people were thinking and why they were thinking it, to assist us to make our decision.

"I will now review their report and weigh it up against all of the other data compiled over the past few months."

Juror Alex Tennikoff said he had a lot of concerns with the Citizen's Jury process and doubted the State Government would accept no for an answer.

"The process was sort of fast and well organised but sort of steered in one direction for a yes vote but then the no vote came through which is what we were all really after," he said.

"They've got the verdict today, they'll go to the office tomorrow and there's Plan B that comes out."

Another juror Fuzzy Trojan said he was also happy with the outcome.

"Too many unknowns and too many risks," he said.

Cabinet will consider the jury's report on Monday with the Government to deliver its own report on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by the end of the year."

ENDS

see the WHOLE ABC AUSTRALIA NEWS ARTICLE at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-06/sa-citizen%27s-jury-vote-against-storing-nuclear-waste/7999262

As I said previously, a complete waste of time and money. Prejudices won as expected.

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes
By Noel Wauchope

Max Green on P8 presented a Utopian view of a nuclear future if this, that and the other circumstances all operated optimally. On the same page I asked in a post dated 30th November some pertinent questions for clarification.

More than a week has passed and he has neither tried to respond positively, nor even acknowledged my post. I ask all Proponents of the nuclear waste dump; Why not try to answer to the best of one's ability? Max Green gave credible predictions which presupposed some detailed expertise. Why not provide answers to a declared skeptic? I asked questions as a layman, as a member of a concerned public and as an Australian. Is it impolite, bad form, ungentlemanly or uncouth to question expertise?

An excellent opportunity to present a legitimate case, to ease the doubts of a skeptic has been wasted. Ockham's Razor dictates that the Principal of Parsimony be applied and consequently further suspicions as to the honesty and integrity of the Proponents have emerged.

Shadow Minister writes: "Prejudices won as expected." And he is completely wrong. He's blaming the public and expects them to feel that somehow they've let the side down because they aren't meek enough to accept entrenched, partisan and self-interested platitudes from the experts.

A significant public antipathy toward the NWD proposal has been generated because a majority of citizens are no longer susceptible to the blandishments of half-truths, of pie-in-the-sky predictions of Utopia, of being kept ignorant of consequences that are apparent only to experts and of politicians who claim to be the exclusive repositories of revealed truth in all matters.

Weatherill will not be satisfied until he canvasses every household in the state. Maybe he's convinced God wants it. There's nothing so contemptible and fatally flawed as a messianic politician who's convinced he has a Royal Telephone. Draped in the cloak of arcane wisdom bestowed by electoral success and elevated by his peers to leadership, he treats with the Lord on a first-name basis and a handshake.

Hello Contemptible Troll,
Let me rephrase that for you:

"the people had their say and they didn't think much of the prejudiced view put forward by contemptible trolls".

Much better.

In case there's any confusion, accepting your apology doesn't lessen my personal contempt for you and those you purport to represent.

Do everyone a favour and jump off a tall building before you do any more harm.

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes
By Noel Wauchope, published 25/10/2016

Greetings Contemptible Troll. It appears you have aroused the dudgeon of Craig Minns and by doing so you have earned his undying contempt. It could be that his ire at we poor and powerless Contemptibles has been boosted by the report from Stephen Long on the Australian Broadcasting Corp's news page:
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/should-south-australia-be-storing-nuclear-waste-above-ground/8003156>

Obviously your beautifully argued posts have reduced the NWD Proponents to bluster and contrived invective aimed at the messenger and ignoring the issue. It was that way from the start, wasn't it? Agree with entrenched vested interests or earn their contempt and be branded as uneducated mavericks.

Thanks to the ABC's report it's now revealed just what a cabal of liars and deceivers the Proponents are. It is very likely that Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce has been treated in similar fashion. I have a feeling he's not a Happy Little Vegemite after being nailed in Long's article. But economist Dr Young, a skeptic, has been vindicated after suffering Proponent attacks on his objectivity and character and the blatant deception perpetrated on him by the organisers Democracy Co.

Contemptible, [may I presume to a first-name basis after just one post to you?] After all, to rejoice in a name given you by the Proponents must be counted as a generous tribute, an escutcheon on your shield proclaiming Truth, Justice and the Australian Way! However, I'm not sure the Proponents intended it so. Though I would caution you not to leap off tall buildings in a single bound as severe injury can result. Anyhow, the Contemptibles would be proud if you would purport to represent them in any future contretemps.

I trust it may be allowed that my own unworthy and inadequate meanderings have contributed in some small measure to the success of the Contemptibles so far. If it is found necessary to man the barricades and ramparts to counter a fresh offensive it would be a shot in the arm if you would answer the call.

Craig,

When I offered an apology, it was in the interests of maintaining cordial and reasoned debate. I should have realised that trying to reason with an ignorant and pathetic failure with anger issues, was a waste of time. Unable to formulate a cogent argument you resort time and again to abuse and lies to cover up your impotence.

I should feel pity, but I just don't have time to care for such a loser.

Of course nuclear material is stored above ground until ready to sink, Pogi. If it's judged safe to do so for the first shipment, why not with each new shipment? Hardly a gotcha!

I await a referendum based on a fully, publically interrogated business plan, and, on whether land that indigenous folk don't use should be locked away from the public.