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.