Draft Terms of Reference

The Royal Commission has now released its Report. To join the current Nuclear community conversation click here.

------------

Have your say

The draft terms of reference direct the Royal Commission to inquire into and report on:

• whether there is any potential for the expansion of the current level of exploration, extraction or milling of minerals containing radioactive materials in South Australia, any circumstances necessary for such an increase to occur and to be viable, any risks and opportunities created by expanding the level of exploration, extraction and milling, and the measures that might be required to facilitate and regulate that increase in activity.

• the feasibility of the further processing of minerals and processing and manufacture of materials containing radioactive and nuclear substances (but not for, or from, military uses) including conversion, enrichment, fabrication or re-processing in South Australia, any circumstances necessary for that further processing or manufacture to be viable, any risks and opportunities associated with establishing and undertaking that further processing or manufacture, and any measures that might need to be taken to facilitate and regulate the establishment and carrying out of further processing or manufacture.

• the feasibility of establishing and operating facilities to generate electricity from nuclear fuels in South Australia, any circumstances necessary for that to occur and to be viable, the relative advantages and disadvantages of generating electricity from nuclear fuels as opposed to other sources, including with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, any risks and opportunities associated with that activity (including its impact on renewable sources and the electricity market), and any measures that might need to be taken to facilitate and regulate their establishment and operation.

• the feasibility of establishing facilities in South Australia for the management, storage and disposal of nuclear and radioactive waste from the use of nuclear and radioactive materials in power generation, industry, research and medicine (but not for, or from, military uses), any circumstances necessary for those facilities to be established and to be viable, the risks and opportunities associated with establishing and operating those facilities, and any measures that might need to be taken to facilitate and regulate their establishment and operation.

The draft Terms of Reference specifically require the Royal Commission, when inquiring into the risks and opportunities associated with the above matters, to consider, where appropriate, their impact upon the economy the environment and the community (including regional, remote and aboriginal communities).

Have your say in the discussion below.

Comments closed

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear

13 Mar 2015

MSRs & LFTRs are documented here:

+ app "Thorium" remix (for iOS & Android devices)

Have a look... :-)

Clem Grieger

13 Mar 2015

I would like the RC to do a study on cutting a channel to allow sea water to flow from the ocean to Lake Eyre. Farmers tell me that when there is water in Lake Eyre the seasons are good and can expect to get better crops. If this could be done the existing produce from land would be improved.
If small nuclear power plants were to be placed along the channel, they could generate power and produce low cost fuel equivalent and the waste heat could be used to desalinate some of the water and move the rest on. This would be able to supply large quantities of fresh water along the channel. As such this would be available for human consumption and farming. With lake Eyre now always being full of water, the suns light (Solar energy) will evaporate water and bring moisture to the surrounding areas making the surrounding land useful for farming. The area that is wasted in these dried out lakes is massive. The salt that is there now and that which flows in can be collected as is currently done in other parts of SA. The power plants can be used to power new industry in those areas as isolated from the grid, with minimal new network construction. Such industrial places could be places to manufacture new technology for the new nuclear industry. Very sketchy - but I think worth considering - the possible benefits may be huge. Such a blessing this could be to beautiful SA.

David Ness

13 Mar 2015

TOR should include a cost-benefit study comparing the costs and benefits of nuclear energy industry for SA, versus the costs and costs of same amount of money invested in renewable energy over the whole life cycle. Nuclear energy is not renewable, and its negative impacts are with us far into the future. This study should include direct and indirect costs, and examine impacts upon the 7 SA strategic objectives under SA Strategic Plan. For example, if SA goes down the nuclear path, this is likely to have a very detrimental impact on international perceptions of SA as a clean, green, healthy and safe tourist destination, producing clean, green, healthy and safe food, beverages and other products. This is contrary to our aims to increase trade with Asia, using a clean, green brand.

Clem Grieger > David Ness

13 Mar 2015

If nuclear energy is not renewable - nor is solar or any other energy which derives its energy from the big nuclear power plant called the sun and which is continuously burning up its energy. You aught to ask the question: can nuclear energy be considered clean and renewable on par with solar and wind if done rightly? Can nuclear energy be done in a way that its negative effects are not with us for a very long time?

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > David Ness

13 Mar 2015

Nuclear Energy is Sustainable. See Dr David MacKay's book (free in PDF):

+ "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air"

Cf: Author's site http://WithoutHotAir.com

In a nutshell, MacKay argues:

+ Use Arithmetic (not Adjectives) to decide what Energy option mix we need,

David Ness > David Ness

13 Mar 2015

Nuclear is NOT renewable. As Energy Matters states very clearly, "Nuclear power plants use nuclear fission to create electricity. The fuel that nuclear power plants use for nuclear fission is uranium. Unlike solar power and wind energy, uranium is a non-renewable resource".
Solar energy (and wind for that matter) is natural and is always with us as a free source of energy, whether we have nuclear or not.

David Ness > David Ness

13 Mar 2015

Nuclear is NOT renewable. As Energy Matters states very clearly, "Nuclear power plants use nuclear fission to create electricity. The fuel that nuclear power plants use for nuclear fission is uranium. Unlike solar power and wind energy, uranium is a non-renewable resource".
Solar energy (and wind for that matter) is natural and is always with us as a free source of energy, whether we have nuclear or not.

Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

Question: 23. 33.6 percent of Australian uranium is exported to North America. The US military has depleted uranium coated ammunitions and armaments, such as bullets and tank shielding. There have been reports claiming an alarming rise of birth defects to children of returned US soldiers and civilians occupying militarised zones. These reports claim the birth defects can be attributed to use of depleted uranium coated ordnance. What checks are in place to guarantee no Australian uranium or its by-products is used to coat US military ammunitions or armaments?
Question: 24. Has uranium coated ordinance or tank shielding been used by the United States Army in war games in central Australia?

To be considered an effective, balanced, honest and legitimate assessment of SA’s role in the nuclear cycle, the Royal Commission needs to assess and answer many more tough questions than the ones listed in these posts.
It’ll be a disservice to the community if the Royal Commissions Terms of Reference doesn’t have a complete overview of South Australia’s role in the nuclear industry, past present and future

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

I'd say the ToR should add a new Term of Ref that lets the Royal Commission deal with the "Elephant in the Room"namely:

+ Would embracing Nuclear Energy - at this critical time - enable SA and/or AU to meet or exceed its modest International commitments to reducing our emissions of Greenhouse Gases?

Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

Question: 17. Uranium waste products can take hundreds of thousands of years to halve their level of toxicity. Pyramids are amongst the oldest surviving manmade structures and are no more than 5000 years old. Therefore what assurances are there, that nuclear waste can be safely stored over much longer periods of time?
Question 18.If South Australia is perceived to be a nuclear waste site by the global community, what will the impact be on Tourism, Real Estate, Food, Wine and manufacturing industries be?
Question 19.Highly toxic Radon gas is released by the mining activities at Roxby downs and apparently can be detected in Antarctica. This gas must pass through Adelaide to get there. What is the effect of Radon gas to workers in the mines and what impact does it have on the wider community?
Question: 20.What is the volume of airborne radioactive dust released into atmosphere by mining and storage of tailings exposed to the wind?
Question: 21.What impact does radioactive dust released by mining practices, have on the Australian public, fauna and flora?
Question: 22.Presumably nuclear waste will be transported from Port Adelaide to its storage destination. What would be the outcome, in the advent of an accident, or fire to the transport within the Metropolitan area?

Clem Grieger > Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

To add to the ToR of RC: Q17 Is it true that molten salt reactor and other recent nuclear technology can burn up this waste, all of it, so that there is none left - none that is radioactive for any significant period of time? So that the waste stacks that already exist throughout the world can be cleaned up and future reactors will not produce a waste problem? Also that this waste can be converted into elements that are of significant value, like silver, Rhodium and a range of others etc?

Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

Question: 11. Would it be sensible to hold a review of the current condition of waterways and aquifers affected by mining practices before an expansion of SA’s nuclear industry commences?
Question: 12. Since the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam a few years ago, has the SA public been receiving fair and balanced Media coverage on the nuclear Industry, particularly in printed Media?
Question: 13. What has been the ratio of Pro/Con nuclear industry stories and editorials in the Advertiser Newspaper since 2010?
Question: 14. What influence has this ratio had on the general public’s current view towards the nuclear industry?
Question: 15. Will the commission call on medical and health specialists to give their perspectives on the nuclear industry and its impact on workers within the industry and the wider community?
Question: 16. Can Nuclear Energy really be defined as a low carbon emission energy source when millions of litres of Diesel are consumed in the Nuclear Cycle annually, particularly in the mining and transport of uranium oxide?

Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

Question: 11. Would it be sensible to hold a review of the current condition of waterways and aquifers affected by mining practices before an expansion of SA’s nuclear industry commences?
Question: 12. Since the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam a few years ago, has the SA public been receiving fair and balanced Media coverage on the nuclear Industry, particularly in printed Media?
Question: 13. What has been the ratio of Pro/Con nuclear industry stories and editorials in the Advertiser Newspaper since 2010?
Question: 14. What influence has this ratio had on the general public’s current view towards the nuclear industry?
Question: 15. Will the commission call on medical and health specialists to give their perspectives on the nuclear industry and its impact on workers within the industry and the wider community?
Question: 16. Can Nuclear Energy really be defined as a low carbon emission energy source when millions of litres of Diesel are consumed in the Nuclear Cycle annually, particularly in the mining and transport of uranium oxide?

Clem Grieger > Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

If we had small modular privately owned nuclear reactors with the right attachments on the mine sites, then no coal or gas would be used to mine or process them and the product would also be cheaper. Zero carbon footprint Nuclear energy should be used in the whole fuel cycle from beginning to end as you rightly point out and it can be if we are allowed to.

Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

Question: 5. Even with best practice and best intentions, industrial accidents happen. What infrastructure is currently in place, should a truck loaded with uranium oxide be involved in an accident in the Metropolitan area and whilst doing so, have a breach of its load or catch fire?
Question: 6. Is it possible to insure against a nuclear mishap and how is Public Liability insurance affected in an accident scenario?
Question: 7.Many environmentalists believe that The Roxby Downs indenture Act 1982 allows wide ranging exemptions from key environmental laws such as the SA Environmental Protection Act 1993, Freedom of information Act 1991 and the Natural Resources Act 2004 critical water resources and Great Artesian Basin. Is this true?
Question: 8. If the answer to question 7 is true, how are these exemptions in the public interest?
Question: 9. Is it possible that similar exemptions will be extended to waste dumps, uranium enrichment operations or nuclear power stations?
Question: 10. Recent revelations by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) reveal widespread and irreversible groundwater contamination by industrial practices in several of Adelaide’s suburbs. Wouldn’t it be prudent for the Commissions terms of reference to contain a review of current uranium mining and transport practices?

Clem Grieger > Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

Can you explain to me how it is possible for uranium oxide can catch fire?

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

Anyone concerned about transporting "fissile" Uranium Oxide around SA and/or AU should consider (& support) SA's early adoption of a Thorium fuel-cycle, since Thorium is only "fertile" (& NOT "fissile").

The "Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor" is for them & - why not? - for All of Us.

Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

I am a concerned citizen of South Australia and have several questions regarding the Royal Commission on S.A’s role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. I’m not a scientist or politician or have any financial stake in the issue. I’m a member of the public. It’ll take a few posts to list my questions
Question: 1. Is the Royal Commissioner or “Chair of the Commission” required to be an impartial and unbiased adjudicator towards the subject of the Commission?
Question: 2. Prior to his selection as “Chair of the Royal Commission” Kevin Scarce had aligned himself with CEDA (the Committee for Economic Development In Australia). CEDA’s Policy Perspectives of Nov 2011 clearly supports and promotes the growth of South Australia’s nuclear industry. Is this a conflict of interest for the Royal Commissioner?
Question: 3.There are clips on YouTube where Kevin Scarce confirms his association with CEDA(seeAug12,2014), using terms like “we were able to get our draft report considered by government...” Given his connection with CEDA and their pro nuclear stance, is Kevin Scarce truly impartial and unbiased in regard to South Australia’s nuclear issues?
Question: 4.Will the SA public really get a balanced debate, or will the Royal Commission, similarly to CEDA only reference pro nuclear “Promethean Environmentalists”?

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > Yuri Poetzl

13 Mar 2015

Before you decide about Nuclear Energy for SA and/or AU - eg, basing your decision ONLY on Fukushima-era, SOLID fuel-rod reactors - I urge you to view your choice of documentaries now available to you via:

+ app "Thorium" remix (for iOS & Andriod)

(Despite its name, it's really about "Molten Salt Reactors" (MSRs), which can be designed to use either Uranium or Thorium as fuel.)

Ken Boyes

12 Mar 2015

Clem, I passionately agree with your advocacy of thorium-based generation
However , I fear that emigration of worthwhile manufacturing industry and industrial research & development capacity from SA will require much of this work to come from other States.
My thoughts about initial funding for this project are simple.
The Federal Government is stuck with supplying $300million this year to the useless Clean Energy Corporation. The Minister for Environment should DIRECT that these funds be dispensed by the Corporation to CSIRO to lead and coordinate the research projects outlined.
I would prefer the thorium base, but uranium must be evaluated thoroughly for Australian conditions. I anticipate that seawater cooling would be utilised, and a the mothballed desalination plants would be operated to maintain continuous base-load operation of the turbines.
The second generation of thorium plants would be suitable for siting, with dams, along the eastern coast north of Kempsey to supply pumped water across the ranges to tributaries of the Murray -Darling system - thereby solving another of SA's major problems

Clem Grieger > Ken Boyes

12 Mar 2015

Well - if we suddenly found ourselves at war, I think we could do all of this in short order. But it is time to realize that we ARE at war - economic war. And it is almost over - we are almost completely defeated. Where is the industry we used to have? Where are the jobs for our people? Where is our ability to export technology products to the world or even to get a fair price coming back to our primary producers? This war has been fought on economic grounds, by tilting the 'level playing field', by burdening us with bureaucratic unnecessary, etc, and we have not even fired a shot in defense of ourselves! The commanders in chief of the enemy sit in our hallowed offices and we keep voting for them.

Whose side do you think the guy that said this is on: "I gladly acknowledge the debt of my own government to Fabianism. The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism: the abolition of private property, in this case to own land. They then align themselves with the non-violent arm of Marxism by accepting the non-violent road of patient gradualism to total government." Bob Hawke, Labor government Prime Minister of Australia, in his speech to the Fabian Society in Melbourne on the 8th May 1984. "For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did, most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes, you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or all your waiting will be in vain and fruitless." Bob Hawke, same venu

Clem Grieger > Ken Boyes

12 Mar 2015

Elsewhere he used the term, "the inevitability of gradualism." ??? He is not alone but amongst 'good' company.

When something is considered impossible - no amount of throwing money at research can make it possible. Then suddenly a complete nobody has a spark of inspiration and what was thought impossible suddenly becomes easy.

I personally believe that the best solution will not come from throwing money at official research bodies, but from a small number of people who are considered nobodies. A bit like the development of the mosquito aircraft in WW2. I think Aesop's fable of the emperors new cloths will manifest itself in a myriad of ways in this whole issue. What the SA Govt needs to do is remove the resistance and blocks and simply allow and welcome some small companies to work on this independently. My experience is big money = big inefficiency and big waste and big greed and big selfishness.

I think you think this cannot be done here and I think your reason is because too much money would be required to build the R&D and manufacturing industry to accomplish this. If we work with money as we have been for a long time now - yes it will be a problem. How about we re establish something like the PEOPLES PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA which funded so much of our early development and infrastructure with debt free money. See what I said 3 days ago.

Clem Grieger > Ken Boyes

12 Mar 2015

I am trying to make the point to this RC and others that one cannot write off nuclear because of some failed technology that we had nothing to do with - the word nuclear covers a massive possible range of technology and we must not write of ALL because of the failure of one.

there is a great deal of good that can come from looking at small modular systems that we design and manufacture and install and maintain - there are huge benefits to the whole economy in so many ways if this approach is embraced. And no I do not mind if other states are contracted to be involved - but Australia must STOP importing technology and other peoples designs and develop their own and so create their own jobs and not export their jobs to others.

We are in agreement in regard to CO2 warming and I have stressed the point that Nuclear stands tall and solidly on its own. I am trying not to disagree with so many people on so many fronts - it is too easy for many to dismiss you as too far out and somehow that seems to translate to mean unscientific or un factual.

Clem Grieger > Ken Boyes

13 Mar 2015

I would like to add, if we build a uranium based reactor it aught to have the capacity to breed U233 from Th. A tragic waste of opportunity otherwise. It is not foolish to burn U235 in a MSR. If you want to build a case for building a U235 reactor, then I would plead with you to build small MSR's which can burn either U235 OR Th. Any thorium fueled reactors will likely have to start on U235 anyway because U233 in not naturally occurring. And again - lots of small modular units is such a good idea for so many reasons.

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > Ken Boyes

13 Mar 2015

We need to embrace "NEW (MSR) Nukes"no matter which part of AU does our R&D. Time is of the essence.

MSRs can & will be Safe, Small, Affordable, Factory-Made, Truck- & rail-transportable... and VERY much in demand. SA will have lots of empty factory space for some / much of this work, not no mention Unis where Nuclar Engineers, et al. can be trained & educated.

NOW is the right time to build-up the rest of the "Educational Infrastructure" - eg, prepare pre-uni students for such courses & training, perhaps offering scholarships to our top students, who are able & willing to study for these important qualifications, & organizing local R&D labs, as even oil-rich Norwegians have done.

Ken Boyes

12 Mar 2015

To add to my previous comment.
Irrespective of whether nuclear power is generated in South Australia, much of the world is still consumed by the myth of carbon dioxide warming, and nuclear power generation is expanding.
I perceive that the most secure repository in the world for nuclear waste storage is indeed the worked-out areas of the Broken Hill Lead Mines.

The potential economic benefit to South Australia, NSW, and Federal governments resulting from suitably sensible policies for the import and storage of waste from other sources would be measured in Billions of dollars of steadily-increasing long-term income. Such income could be directed at implementing many sociably desirable policies that are presently subject to political division, or could be applied to reduction of the horrendous Debt and Deficit Disaster.
Yes, this would require an unusual level of Federal/State and political bipartisanship and goodwill to achieve. However what other country on this planet could be trusted to maintain security of this waste better than Australia!

Ken Boyes

12 Mar 2015

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to projects that could be the pathway leading to South Australia at last contributing to the scientific, industrial and economic growth and leadership of our nation, instead of being the mendicant handbrake that it currently is, and has been for my entire lifetime
Whilst the draft terms of reference are reasonably comprehensive, they fail to address any participation by other states or nations.
I would like the following suggestions to be seriously considered.
1. That the Commission include a detailed economic study o siting an initial 2000MW nuclear power station in close proximity to Port Pirie. Ready provision of essential lead for shielding and ready access to cooling water, in a seismically stable geology and an area free from uncontrollable weather events make this a site suitable for not only power generation, but also the additional industries involved in processing ores from the Olympic Dam area.

2. Issues of Native Title and long-term security associated with waste storage sites in South Australia be negated by consultation with NSW to permit development of waste storage in the worked-out areas of the Broken Hill lead mines. Again stable geology, natural containment of radioactivity and relatively inexpensive rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, together with existing rail transport makes this a very attractive proposition.

Clem Grieger > Ken Boyes

12 Mar 2015

And while doing this study, compare that with building an array of 50 of 40 MW unattended small modular high temperature thorium molten salt reactors to be placed on the same site. These to be designed by technologists in SA, and manufactured in assembly lines in SA with all of the raw materials required being sourced from SA unless they do not exits in SA. Being funded with debt free money already mentioned in this forum.

Comparison at least to include:
number of jobs created to design system
number of jobs created to manufacture system
number of jobs to install and commission the system
potential new industries created withing the power generation industry
potential new industries created that have applications outside the power generation industry
amount of waste produced per year
type of waste produced
ease of extracting useful materials from the waste
waste that actually needs to be dumped in the mine
quantity of water required per year
total thermodynamic efficiency
3D footprint required
ability to install similar systems in other parts of SA
ability to be a driver for other spinoff technologies and industries
potential to export goods and technology, also from new industries
vulnerability to failure of significant component
ability to be able to adapt system to include manufacture of hydrogen from water
ability to be able to adapt system to make low cost synthetic fuel (hydrocarbon) from water and coal
ability to be able to modify the design of the system

Clem Grieger > Ken Boyes

12 Mar 2015

ability to be able to modify the design of the system
ability to be able to subcontract out design and manufacture of all components in SA
Ability to be able to relocate a portion of the generating capacity to another location
possibility of suffering a melt down
active or passive shutdown safety
benefits of economy of scale
time required to start generating something
level of difficulty in licensing system

IWAN SETIYONO KO

12 Mar 2015

Would like to promote research on the world's first integrated uranium (nuclear) fuel leasing in South Australia.

Pdf version and kindle versions are now available at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UJXBB1A

Title: The World's First Integrated Nuclear Fuel Leasing in Australia? A Proposed Business Model and Its Economic Appraisal.

Abstract
This work proposes a new Australian uranium business model referred to as Australian Integrated Nuclear Fuel Leasing (INFL) scheme that adopts a cradle-to-grave, open nuclear fuel cycle. The proposed model is the world’s first INFL and arguably the most comprehensive proposal ever made for similar scheme. Economic modelling and Monte Carlo simulations as well as in-context discussions on the country's social and political aspects are then done to analyze the overall feasibility of the scheme. Furthermore, the scheme's potential contribution to global Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) enforcement is also discussed.

IWAN SETIYONO KO > IWAN SETIYONO KO

12 Mar 2015

Here is the link for the Amazon AU store:
http://www.amazon.com.au/gp/product/B00UJXBB1A?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > IWAN SETIYONO KO

13 Mar 2015

On the surface, an AINFL strikes me as an excellent idea.

However, AU has first got to end its current BAN on the use of Nuclear Energy use here.

Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

Nuclear power is not the answer to climate change and our need for alternate power sources. We don't want a repeat of fukushima, chernobyl or any other radioactive disaster here. South Australia is one of the driest states in the country. The huge amount of water needed to cool a nuclear power plant does not justify it even coming into existence in SA. Nor does having radioactive waste that we can't dispose of safely, for more time than any of our current lifetimes, which effectively leaves future generations with unmanageable radioactive waste. It is not green or sustainable to even build a nuclear power plant, transport the uranium and deal with the waste. Alternatives like solar and wind are far cheaper and undeniably safer. We have many safer options for renewable energy, we don't need nuclear power. Wake up Australia, this idea should have been "dead and buried" a long time ago already.

IWAN SETIYONO KO > Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

Here is the link for the Amazon AU store:
http://www.amazon.com.au/gp/product/B00UJXBB1A?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

David McGuffie > Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

The point of the Commission is to look into the points you make above and see how the arguments for and against factually stack up without getting emotive about it.

Nuclear power must be considered (whether it is eventually ruled in or out) as it is an answer for climate change because it produces 100's of times less carbon per kW than coal, oil or gas and it is also the only current alternative to fossils fuels for baseload power. The best climate option is hydro (cheapest/greenest in terms of cost to produce and carbon emissions per kW) but SA doesn't have the water resources and it still needs another power source to power the pumps to pump the water back up to it's reservoir.

It does need a water supply but the amount required for operation is similar to equivalent output fossil fuel stations. Water requirements will limit potential sites but all types of power generation have their own siting requirements.

Waste processing and storage is part of the commission remit, as it needs to be, as Australia's current radioactive waste storage sites may be unsuitable for any increase in amounts and types of waste produced if nuclear fuel cycle is expanded.

Solar and wind are cheaper to build than nuclear but they also produce a lot less power and do so intermittently . For an accurate comparison you need to compare them in relation to cost per MW. These are the reasons for having the commission so the facts can be understood without prejudging the outcome.

David McGuffie > Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

The point of the Commission is to look into the points you make above and see how the arguments for and against factually stack up without getting emotive about it.

Nuclear power must be considered (whether it is eventually ruled in or out) as it is an answer for climate change because it produces 100's of times less carbon per kW than coal, oil or gas and it is also the only current alternative to fossils fuels for baseload power. The best climate option is hydro (cheapest/greenest in terms of cost to produce and carbon emissions per kW) but SA doesn't have the water resources and it still needs another power source to power the pumps to pump the water back up to it's reservoir.

It does need a water supply but the amount required for operation is similar to equivalent output fossil fuel stations. Water requirements will limit potential sites but all types of power generation have their own siting requirements.

Waste processing and storage is part of the commission remit, as it needs to be, as Australia's current radioactive waste storage sites may be unsuitable for any increase in amounts and types of waste produced if nuclear fuel cycle is expanded.

Solar and wind are cheaper to build than nuclear but they also produce a lot less power and do so intermittently . For an accurate comparison you need to compare them in relation to cost per MW. These are the reasons for having the commission so the facts can be understood without prejudging the outcome.

Clem Grieger > Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

And that is precisely why we need this RC - to put to bed, once and for all, for everyone to see, such all embracing ignorant and nonfactual statements as has been made! Nuclear does not need a climate change excuse to justify its debut, it stands firmly on its own feet independent and without any need for climate change to hold its hand or make it look respectable.

Of course we don't want a repeat of Fukushima or any other disaster, and that is why I and many others would like to see the shut down of such dinosaur technology as soon a possible and NEVER grow then HERE! But there are a million different ways to do nuclear, and this NEEDS to be understood. You admit that SA is a dirty state, and that is without even ONE nuclear plant! Maybe that is why. We can have a nuclear future that is far safer and far cleaner than what we are doing right now - and clean up our economy as well with real jobs, lots of them.

A graphite moderated reactor core uses ZERO point ZERO ZERO... water in the core. A high temperature reactor like the molten salt reactor (MSR) can operate the conversion of heat to electricity conversion with greater thermodynamic efficiency. A typical water reactor is a low temperature output device. If one uses cooling towers to provide the heat sink, then a larger quantity of water will be consumed per MWHr produced compared with a higher temperature thermodynamic conversion process.

Clem Grieger > Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

It is possible to design a nuclear power plant using gas turbines rather than steam turbines which would not involve the use of ANY water AT ALL. But this water is not even a direct function of nuclear power but the same as would be required for other heat source generators like coal or gas. Even thermal solar will be a relatively low temperature operation and will similarly use large quantities of water if the same thermodynamic conversion process is used. I suggest that we use a water desalination process as the heat sink instead of cooling towers where we can get access to sufficient quantities of water, like sea water. This will have a large flow of water but will waste none of it. It will convert saline water to fresh drinking water as the heat sink. So you are getting fresh water from salt water for FREE.

If you burn thorium in a MSR you have hundreds of times less waste per MWHr produced. And the waste is entirely different. 80% of the fission waste is no longer radioactive after 2 years! The remainder I suggest can be used for something else or disposed of by down blending like we currently do with unwanted radioactive by products in mining operations - back into the mine where it came from at similar or background radiation levels. I contend that new nuclear technology can be both green and sustainable. I have already mentioned this on this site.

Clem Grieger > Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

Wind and solar is not free any more than thorium in the ground is free. Solar and wind ultimately come from nuclear energy anyway, we are just tapping into it at a different position in the energy flow. Nuclear from U or Th represent extreme concentration of energy and extreme low cost and give us the ability to be portable. You simply cannot take a wind generator or solar array and make that drive a vessel anywhere at any time. And this fact opens up huge opportunities for jobs and new technology etc that can NEVER be realized without opening the nuclear energy gift box responsibly.

My main point - when you basket together a huge range of dissimilar technology under the same label and try to punish all because of the sins of one you do great injustice and demonstrate lack of wisdom or discretion or understanding and consign your piers to foolishness for which we will ALL suffer.

Marisol Da Silva > Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

Thanks for your replies, David and Clem.

I disagree with several of the comments listed. Here are all the responses I have time for at this point.

1. There is no denying we need alternate power sources. But nuclear power has recently been ditched by many countries as it is too expensive to set up and run, as well as being extremely dangerous. Think about how much fossil fuels and energy goes into building a nuclear plant in the first place, then the transport of the uranium, the waste disposal etc. Nuclear power is hardly carbon neutral. And once contamination occurs there is no going back.

Power stations built in the past have often ended up over schedule and significantly over budget. If anything goes wrong it is expensive. If there is a meltdown, we pay the ultimate price. Why do we have to go over and over the same stuff, again and again? Why do we not learn and move on? Nuclear energy is therefore playing high stakes with people's lives and the lives of future generations.

2. My comments are neither ignorant nor foolish. I have conducted interviews with people whose lives have and are being destroyed by nuclear devastation. I also have done extensive historical research on the topic of nuclear devastation. I have been out to Olympic Dam uranium mine. I have heard all these arguments before. Interestingly, whenever people have spoken against nuclear power and the nuclear industry (let us not forget that the depleted uranium ends up in bombs etc), they are ridicule

Marisol Da Silva > Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

continued..

Interestingly, whenever people have spoken against nuclear power and the nuclear industry (let us not forget that the depleted uranium ends up in bombs etc), they are ridiculed as emotive and irrational. Anyone for nuclear, is represented as sane and somehow superior, rational and scientific. It is interesting that here, David replies to my statement against nuclear with the words "emotive" and lets not get "prejudiced". I somehow don't see you saying the same for Clem's replies, which incidentally are littered with capitalised words and exclamation marks. Somehow, he isn't emotive or prejudiced, David?

3. I will never trust anyone/team to run a nuclear plant safely. Humans error, history proves that again and again. We now also face increasingly erratic weather patterns, and no one, not even David or Clem here, can guarantee that we wont have our own fukushima one day should a nuclear plant be constructed here in beautiful SA. The plants in Japan were not considered "dinosaur" when they were put in. Technology will keep moving, unfortunately the plants won't. And one day, once again, another meltdown. Unless we learn and move on to better power solutions.

4. Arguably more jobs can be created by diversifying energy production and funding alternate energy, particularly solar. We have so much sun in this country, that is what we should be using. It is sad to see the current government in Australia axing majority of the funding to such innovations. But no doub

Marisol Da Silva > Marisol Da Silva

12 Mar 2015

4. Arguably more jobs can be created by diversifying energy production and funding alternate energy, particularly solar. We have so much sun in this country, that is what we should be using. It is sad to see the current government in Australia axing majority of the funding to such innovations. But no doubt, economics and need will prevail over the "fossils" of the past.

5. David and Clem, perhaps you should start to feel a bit emotional, maybe even research and understand the lives and stories of the innocent people impacted by nuclear devastation. Lots of stuff available on Chernobyl and Fukushima out there as an obvious start. Then there is the USA, India - oh the list goes on. The work of photographer Robert Knoth and journalist Antionette de Jong in their book Certificate No. 000358 (a decade of research) is one good place to start, or see the video summary of it - https://vimeo.com/9386303

Hopefully you might feel something for others who have suffered the mistakes of the nuclear industry.

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > Marisol Da Silva

13 Mar 2015

I'd say:

+ Do the Maths (Renewables with - vs without - Nuclear Energy (as Dave MacKay does; his free eBook is here: cf http://WithouHotAir.com)

Right now, we need to use Arithmetic, not Adjectives, etc. :-)

Clem Grieger

12 Mar 2015

The RC must investigate what relevance the EPBD act 1999 has to the entities: A commonwealth project, a state project, a commercial project or a private project being operated wholly within the state of SA, OR, extending to include interaction with other states or countries - in relation to ANY nuclear activity. ANY, including those technologies specifically identified in the 140A section and ALSO technologies like thorium molten salt reactor which was never envisioned by those who drafted the said act. Further, if said act has any relevance at all, to each of these specific targeted groups/entities, being sections: 21, 22, 22A, 140A and also the regs: 2.01, 2.02, 2.03, 2.2, or any others that I might have missed - that it investigate what range of options each of these said groups could have to defeat what some might consider a ban on such activities so that the ground is cleared for all to understand the opportunities or what needs to be done and what can be ignored.

Clem Grieger > Clem Grieger

12 Mar 2015

My suggestion would read more clearly with the following modification to the last sentence:

Further, if said act has any relevance at all, (being sections: 21, 22, 22A, 140A and also the regs: 2.01, 2.02, 2.03, 2.2, or any others that I might have missed) to each of these respective specific targeted groups/entities (project of: commonwealth, S.A., commercial[S.A.], commercial [foreign owned], private, Not_for_profit, research).

Still further, that it investigate what range of options each of these said groups could have to defeat what some might consider a ban on such activities so that the ground is cleared for all to understand the opportunities and what can be ignored, or what needs to be done to defeat the stifling of opportunities.

Yuri Poetzl

12 Mar 2015

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission - Draft Terms of Reference
Please note that my detailed submission has been sent by email as it is a series of questions and the document appears too large to fit into this space.
Kind regards
Yurij Poetzl yuripoetzl@hotmail.com

Clem Grieger > Yuri Poetzl

12 Mar 2015

Which closes off any ability for those in this open public forum to comment.

Edward Kee

11 Mar 2015

Nuclear Economics Consulting Group (NECG) provides advice on economic and business issues facing nuclear power projects, with a focus on the interaction between nuclear power and the electricity industry.
Nuclear power is the only non-combustion generation technology that can provide large amounts of reliable baseload capacity. The long-term levelized cost of electricity from nuclear power compared favorably to other “clean” sources of electricity.
The Royal Commission should consider the potential benefits of nuclear power and other nuclear industry activities, but must also consider how to overcome the issues arising from Australia’s electricity industry structure.
The electricity industry structure in the eastern states of Australia presents issues for new nuclear projects not present in traditional electricity industry structures (e.g., vertically integrated electric utilities with monopoly service areas).
I published an editorial in the World Nuclear News in February 2015 (Can nuclear succeed in liberalized power markets? - http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Can-nuclear-succeed-in-liberalized-power-markets-0420152.html) on this topic.
A series of NECG Commentaries (e.g., http://nuclear-economics.com/5-revenue-certainty/ ) addresses key issues faced by nuclear power in restructured electricity industry.

David McGuffie > Edward Kee

11 Mar 2015

I agree that the small but connected eastern state markets are not compatible with a "standard nuclear unit" (1000-1600 MW each). The use of Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) i.e. units of less than 500MW each would be possible as they could be used to phase out coal fired units of a similar size.

The vertically integrated players and the current use of cheap gas fired peaking plants have made the coal fired generators struggle to break even. The pool price for electricity is about 10% of the domestic electricity cost with the remainder being distribution (~60% for poles and wires) and retail costs and profit.

As the fuel cost for a nuclear station is a small percentage of the operating costs (~5%) nuclear units more than coal or gas units need to operate as baseload generators. In the current market this will be difficult as installed capacity vastly outstrips demand.

An option so to increase profitability is linking the nuclear unit to another revenue generating plant that would use either the thermal energy or electricity at times of low demand or low price e.g. a desalination plant but allow the nuclear station to operate at baseload.

Clem Grieger > Edward Kee

11 Mar 2015

Well : if you connect it to the grid. In the case that a SMR power supply is used to drive a new mine, there is NO poles and wires cost of the same order, there is NO marketing / retail, I reckon the 10% generation will also go way down. So a very very significant reduction in energy cost to mine and manufacture - much more competitive! Thus cost of product can go way down also and benefit our industry which uses the raw materials. Plus providing desalinated fresh water to such remote locations. Nuclear power represents a quantum change in energy density, energy cost, and goods delivery from such a plant, power, heat, fresh water, low cost gasoline, low cost hydrogen, made where it is consumed. This opens up the possibilities of new industries that could never be contemplated otherwise. How about nuclear powered transport aircraft delivering our export goods to China at a fraction of the cost of ships? Not even any CO2 exhaust. Without opening the nuclear lid we are doomed to stay in our ingenuity prison! BUT let US own the mines not some foreign business, and let US develop the new technology - - jobs - jobs - jobs!

Catherine Cox

10 Mar 2015

I understand that the terms of reference could include a comparison between nuclear (various generation techniques) and solar thermal generation as used in Spain, using the hot salt and concentrated mirror method. An Alinta study is underway and a 50 watt standalone power station has been rated as both feasible and profitable. I also understand that it would generate around 8,000 jobs in a location such as Port Augusta, something which would be very welcome socially. Looking to the future we could become exporters of this technology. I would like to compare the job generation potential of nuclear power, and also the water usage and related infrastructure needs of any proposals, including renewables, as these are critical for SA with our low water supplies and long distances.

Clem Grieger > Catherine Cox

10 Mar 2015

Good thought Catherine - but lets make sure in our comparison we distinguish between buying a nuc power station from someone else ( no jobs) as opposed to developing and manufacturing our own ( huge number of new jobs and new industries ) small modular units in assembly lines for every town. Water can be desalinated and so would provide local fresh water for every town from salt water and would not consume water. Plus could also make low cost gasoline at each town from water and carbon. All this we could develop and manufacture - jobs jobs jobs - good REAL jobs!

David McGuffie > Catherine Cox

11 Mar 2015

The linking of building of Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) and desalination plants is a good one (see article below) as it gets round the issues related to variability of electricity demand and allows the nuclear unit(s) to operate at their most efficient as baseload stations with desalination occurring during periods of low price or demand. Desalination plants have the advantages of being proven technology, easy to ramp up and down with a product (fresh water) that is easy to stock.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421401295X

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear

10 Mar 2015

After listening to (part of) a very recent "Health Matters"program on ABC RN (nee Radio National), I wonder if AU will have any insurmountable Governance issues arise, since, eg, our C'wth gov't has - for years been paying out Millions of $$ to the Pharmacy Guild, reportedly with little or no accountability, &, in some cases, Millions of $$ to that Guild WITHOUT the Minister's approval. The situation had got SO BAD that the most recent contract is presently ON-HOLD(!),
due to past anomalies.

Not only that, but the same C'wth gov't that's beginning to act on past issues has - after the fact - handed over a massive chunk of its own processing (connected with Pharmacies) TO the same Pharmacy Guild, to whom moneys have been paid, across multiple past contracts.

Once could raise concerns that - if our Gov'ts can't keep it together well/long enough to manage Pharmacy Guild issues - how will they do with other more-technical areas like Nuclear Energy?

Out 1999 BAN of Nuclear Energy could also work against us, in this connection, since - if the AU electorate didn't see the irony in the name "Environment & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999" & the fact that Nuclear (rather than Coal & other fossil fuels based) Energy was/remains banned.

We might know Sports & Mining, but it takes more than a bought- or rented-in "brain-trust" to do Nuclear (at least, if we - G-d forbid! - buy-into IFR PRISM's solid fuel-rod + Plutonium re-processing costly burden on future generations).

Tim Bickmore

10 Mar 2015

Re the TOR excluding waste from nuclear weapons:
according to the IAEA (the global nuclear energy monitor to which Aus is a signatory) not all countries report the source of their waste. To name a few - India, Israel, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Cuba, Pakistan, Germany DO NOT REPORT WASTE FROM DEFENSE PROGRAMMES.
[newmdb.iaea.org/datacentre-datamining.aspx].
Therefore it is beyond the capacity of the SAGov to deny waste from nuclear weapons and a pointless exercise to incorporate such a patently flawed parameter.

Chris Mills

09 Mar 2015

I submitted a paper to Premier Weatherill on this subject, and received a gracious reply - my paper has been forwarded to the Commission staff for consideration.

Since compiling that paper, my research has revealed 'PRISM' Reactors:

http://gehitachiprism.com/

These are 311 MW 'Modular' nuclear reactors that use liquid sodium for cooling. They have been operating in a development mode for 30 years. The best part of the design is that they can burn the toxic and long-life nuclear wastes from other reactors into much shorter life and less toxic substances.

So, The Commission, if it considers that a Nuclear Power Generation is an option for South Australia and processing waste is part of the enterprise, might also consider investigating the PRISM Reactor Concept. While burning waste from other countries, these reactors would put power into the South Australian Grid, and power the milling, enrichment, and recovery of fuel from spent rods.

The design is modular so that the production costs are reduced in comparison with 'one-of' nuclear power station.

A comment on funding. A closed nuclear power cycle in South Australia could be a global enterprise, with many countries and enterprises purchasing share or giving value-in-kind. For example, GE-Hitachi could purchase a share by providing and operating a PRISM nuclear power station module in South Australia.

Rex Patrick > Chris Mills

10 Mar 2015

You point out the revenue side of power generation ... no problems there ... but how is the power generation project funded ($Bs) in the many years between a decision to proceed and the first electricity bill being paid by a customer. How are the other components of the RC plan with less obvious revenue sources seeded and funded through life.

I just think a report that doesn't deal with"how" will be a less meaningful report.

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > Chris Mills

10 Mar 2015

If - by PRISM - you mean IFR PRISM reactor - I do NOT support this choice.

I understand that/of IFR PRISM:
0. modules, eg: 1 (or more) reactors, beside a "Plutonium-eliminator"
1. uses Solid fuel-rods, suggesting Most Cost & Less Safety to me;
2. some IFR PRISM "deals" charge ZERO to build the reactor, BUT
. . a. Fees BOTH for Electricity produced AND for Plutonium eliminated
. . b. "ZERO upfront cost" imply a big [lifetime?] Finance charge [to GE?]
3. they need human operators (costly; NOT a good way to create jobs)

I would ask / say:

- WHY buy into a SOLID FUEL-ROD Reactor that MAKES PLUTONIUM?
- WHY put all of our eggs into ONE (ie, BIG Reactor) basket?
+ BETTER to use LIQUID-Fuel Reactors that DON'T make PLUTONIUM.

+ Small "Molten Salt Reators" (MSRs) can be distributed all over SA,
SAVING line-losses, operator costs, & providing greater SECURITY
AGAINST attack of our "only" power plant.

Chris Mills > Chris Mills

10 Mar 2015

Click on the embedded link I provided.

The point of the GE-Hitachi PRISM reactor is the it 'depositions' Plutonium.

Here is more detail:

http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism/benefits-of-prism/

Milling, enriching and waste recovery will require energy, so it makes sense to have a nuclear power station like PRISM close to the site where these activities are concentrated.

MSR reactors at other places to reduce grid losses. Yes. And replace the grid with high voltage DC at the same time.

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > Chris Mills

10 Mar 2015

An associate reminded me that some of Ben Heard's YouTube-talk(s)
seem to subtly promote the (solid fuel-rod) IFR PRISM reactor, with-
out even a -mention- of much more popular MSRs & LFTRs (ie, with
folks who'll PAY Long-Term COSTS of a Nuclear Reactor choice, in
future).

These folks want Safe, Cheap, Efficiently-generated Electricity, and
that implies Liquid-fuel MSRs, today. Look to Terrestrial Energy Inc.
&/or TransAtomic Power for these.

(Pages 302-303 of Rob Hargraves' book "Thorium - Energy Cheaper
than Coal" has a long list of "LFTR Advantages" (LFTR = a type of
Molten Salt Reactor).

Clem Grieger

09 Mar 2015

In order to fund the development of new technology and industry the R.C. needs to investigate how Australia funded projects with the old PEOPLES PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA. "This PUBLIC Commonwealth bank of the people paid for Australia’s First World War effort with its own ISSUED money. It provided the money for building the Nullarbor Plains railway line to Western Australia. For twelve years it funded the building of roads, tramways, harbours, gasworks, electric power stations and infrastructure throughout Australia without incurring interest-debt upon the people. It provided the money for the nation’s wheat crops and wool clips when the private bankers were demanding high rates of USURY INTEREST to provide money for these essential industries. In 1923 the Labor Party Commonwealth Bank’s supporting Governor Sir Denison Miller died, which unfortunately gave ... to financially ‘strangle’ the peoples PUBLICLY owned Commonwealth Bank—and in 1924 ... place it under ... PRIVATE Fractional Reserve USURY control without the peoples consent". The R.C. must investigate and recommend how this ISSUE DEBT-FREE money can be returned to benefit the people of at least S.A. There are still today banks like the BANK of NORTH DAKOTA—USA operating, and so it is certainly possible in today's world!.

Rex Patrick

09 Mar 2015

SA needs to look at the way in which the outcome of the Commission (whatever it decides) would be implemented. Its no good spending all of this money to produce a report on what should be done, without a plan as to how, for example, it would be funded.

By way of simple example ... SA could attract federal funding by connecting the civil implementation program to Australia's Future Submarine project. One of the main reasons Australia is not proceeding down a nuclear submarine path is because it lacks a nuclear industry (and the expertise that comes with one). During the birth of the US nuclear industry, Naval Reactors and the Atomic Energy Commission worked together, hand in glove, to advance the cause of both.

The current ToRs constrain such an option because of the exclusion of things related to "military use". At the very least, change the exclusion to "weapon use" such that things like nuclear propulsion are within scope.

Peter Goon > Rex Patrick

09 Mar 2015

An eminently sound, rational and logical recommendation.

There is not much point looking at the "what" and the "why" without also looking at the "how"!

The recommendation to lift the constraint in the draft ToR on "military use" to permit the RC to look into all uses for nuclear energy, other than "weapons use", also makes good and sound sense.

If the RC is to be an opportunity to take a fresh look at our role in nuclear energy, then its ToR should not be bound by prejudices from an era past nor the politics of 'who is right' (and, therefore, 'who is wrong'); but rather 'what is right' and 'what is best'!

Might I respectfully suggest we should all be prepared to look at the data and the facts; then objectively test the evidence?

Now, wouldn't that be a refreshing change?

Clem Grieger > Rex Patrick

10 Mar 2015

Yes - the trouble is that concept of 'dual use technology', and the source of the immorality. Just about anything that you can think of can be dual use. A rock can be used to build a road or it can be used as a weapon to hurt another human being. There is nothing in the rock itself that is inherently good or bad. It is just a rock. The problem comes with what man decides to do with it. A truck is a great tool for peaceful purposes for transporting goods from one place to another but can be used as a weapon of terror by driving it into a crowd of people. Similarly power plants are not evil in themselves whether used to drive vessels for peaceful purposes or to drive vessels as weapon platforms to threaten terror upon others. And again, there is nothing evil with plutonium - it is just plutonium. Still further, a nuclear explosive device is not evil in itself and I am going to insist that could be used for peaceful purposes, like mining, or building large dams or underground rivers or tunnels or cities. There is nothing immoral with nuclear explosive devises. There is something terribly wrong with using a nuclear explosive as a weapon of terror upon innocent people. I trust that you know that WW2 was over months before the two atom bombs were dropped on Japan. Those who pulled the strings of power intentionally kept the war going for several more months so that the atomic bomb could be tested on live population, so that the world could see what horror and devastation is caused.

Clem Grieger > Rex Patrick

10 Mar 2015

They wanted to have a new weapon of absolute terror that the mere mention of it would cause any people on earth go to water at the knees and immediately comply with their governments wishes - so that the population of nations would be easier to control. I do not know what the answer is and how to draw the line, for certain, there is nothing immoral or intrinsically evil with any materiel composition be it nuclear power plants of nuclear exploding devices, for they can all be used for good or evil - for peaceful or hostile purposes. So here is a test for you.

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > Rex Patrick

10 Mar 2015

We might have problems getting a military project into the Terms of Ref., since existing clauses ban sending product to military users.

Rex Patrick > Rex Patrick

10 Mar 2015

The Department of Defence, by enactment, controls the export of military or dual use goods from Australian shores. Nothing the SA Government might do as a result of the RC would disturb that (see S109 of The Constitution).

Clem Grieger

07 Mar 2015

The Tor of the R.C. must investigate the effects that the Australian signing of the LIMA declaration, 1975, has had on S.A. jobs, economy and industry - for the principle intent of the R.C. is to see, and report openly, if any new nuclear industry could help S.A. in its desperate jobs and economic plight. The R.C. must make recommendation on how the effects of the LIMA declaration (or any other similar intent agreement) can be reversed, otherwise any industry, jobs, economic benefits that could possibly flow to the people of S.A. from a new nuclear industry, will never be realized as any such benefits will immediately be manipulated to turn such upside down, with the behind the scenes iron fisted adherence to the LIMA declaration intent. Since the ToR for this R.C. has been asked to be wide, it must be considered FUNDAMENTAL to include investigation how any possible new industry could be undermined by existing 'background' agreements and how these can be rectified or reversed to bring the intended benefits to S.A.

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > Clem Grieger

09 Mar 2015

Your comment reads like a YouTube video (ie, "Australia The Lima Declaration") I just tried to view. I stopped trying after less than 3 minutes. Perhaps you can give us a 25 words or less summary of those Terms, of that Declaration, that you find distasteful...? TIA.

Clem Grieger > Clem Grieger

09 Mar 2015

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear - I am now just a little bit past the nappy stage and maybe I have been around just a little bit longer than you have - Long enough to see the utter devastation that has occurred over the years to this once great and free nation, Australia. Economic and industrial and production devastation that can not reasonably be explained, other than by deliberate behind the scenes, (Fabian), manipulation and sabotage - treason! When someone makes 1000 mistakes in a row an intelligent person can be excused for concluding that it was planned that way. And an intelligent person who has a love for his fellow man puts in some effort to find out who and what enemy has done this, and how. I wonder why Keeting removed the ability for the appropriate and fitting penalty for treason to be applied?
If you cannot afford even 3 minutes to do some research on finding out how Australia has been so crippled and is in economic and jobs and debt destitution, when one of the culprits has been identified for you for free, then I think, not only nothing I can say here in 25 words will be able to help you, but you are not serious.
I ask you this question: what is the point in bringing a new clean technology to a nation if as soon as it is offered, its benefits will be turned against the interests of the Australian people and be used to further enslave them? Can you answer this?

Clem Grieger > Clem Grieger

09 Mar 2015

You know, it does matter which way you point a gun or which direction you drive a wonderfully designed high technology car. The ToR of this RC is broad and includes all kinds of implication for nuclear technology - it must include this aspect as well. If this R.C. suggests that there could be great economic benefits for being involved with nuclear technology assuming we do not follow the intent of the LIMA declaration, it had better recommend how the intents of LIMA can be reversed otherwise there will be NO benefit to the people of SA.

I am an engineer, and as such I have a duty of care not only to roll out science and technology into new machines and equipment and structures etc, but principally to do this in a way that benefits my fellow man, firstly my own fellow countryman, but then all of humanity and to help humanity to live in peace and harmony with each other for the good and enjoyment of all - great and free. Since you like watching YTube videos try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw28HmmvNNs , And since you asked for textual criticism on the LIMA dec, try this: http://larryhannigan.com/docs/Lima_Declaration.pdf, http://www.oziz4oziz.com/how-australia-was-globalised.html . I refuse to offer blessings from my hand to further the interests of those who want to rule over, control and own other people with their own secret agenda!.

David McGuffie

06 Mar 2015

The ToR only have 4 points but they do cover the whole of the nuclear fuel cycle.
1) Exploration, extraction & milling. Not banned but could do more.
2) Conversion, concentration and fuel manufacture. Not banned but a difficult market to break into with no domestic market.
This point also includes reprocessing which does link to fuel manufacture but would be better separated out as a separate point as you can reprocess without committing to fuel manufacture or nuclear generation. Not banned and doesn't require domestic market but does require waste management and at least interim waste storage.
3) Nuclear power production. Banned but ban can be overturned by gov. The use of such a generic title as can be seen from comments also stops a number of "non-traditional" nuclear power based options. An option here if the gov didn't want to totally lift the ban could be to clarify which nuclear power technologies are banned or which specific ones are excluded from the ban - either way it needs gov approval.
4) Waste management and storage. Not banned but could do more.

I think to ToR should be extended to five points i.e. Reprocessing removed from bullet 2) and made its own area of discussion/study.

Clem Grieger > David McGuffie

06 Mar 2015

What is your reference to say that - nuclear power production - is banned? What are you referring to?

David McGuffie > David McGuffie

06 Mar 2015

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Subdivision E) lists nuclear actions that require commonwealth gov approval or license.

Liquid-Fuel Nuclear > David McGuffie

06 Mar 2015

More specifically... Section 140A of:

- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Given the greater levels of Adverse Impacts, that mining & burning Coal has had on both Environment & Biodiversity, I'd suggest Nuclear Energy does a much Better job of conserving -both- of these, ie, than Coal ever did.