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