SA - Nuclear Future

Ideas and concepts of what Adelaide can be.
Message
Author
User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#31 Post by monotonehell » Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:27 pm

rev wrote:...Why can't there be a centrist party that takes the good from both and combines them into one policy platform?
You know what I'm going to say don't you? ;)
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3941
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#32 Post by rev » Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:54 pm

monotonehell wrote:
rev wrote:...Why can't there be a centrist party that takes the good from both and combines them into one policy platform?
You know what I'm going to say don't you? ;)
:D


Has anyone heard that apparently Australia was selected as the worlds nuclear waste dump something like 40 years ago by the United Nations?
Haven't looked into it but came across that info the other day. Interesting if true.

I haven't read the report, and this could be contained in it, but why just build a nuclear waste dump site?
Why would you not reprocess whatever nuclear waste you possibly could, so it could be then sold again as fuel for reactors?

Why are we also not going to process our uranium before selling it to other countries?
Instead of just selling them raw uranium, we should process it for them, at a cost, and then sell it to them. It would bring in more money, but it would also limit the potential that our uranium can be used for nuclear weapons development.
Particularly since we are supplying India with uranium, and they have an active nuclear weapons program.

I feel as if..this whole inquiry into it, was simply to give a preliminary green light for a nuclear waste dump in SA, with the purpose of winning public support by dangling a carrot of $450 billion(over 70 years) in front of a state that is economically struggling with more bad news coming over the next two-three years on the jobs front.
I dare say that it's also linked to the ship building industry, and defence industry in general(what happened to the armored vehicles contract, did Geelong get it?), with the federal government preparing to give the offshore vessels contract to WA, the subs contract or a lions share of it overseas, and the frigates contract will probably be divided up between Osborne, Newcastle and Williamstown. So from a promised 12 subs in SA, 9 frigates in SA, to bits and pieces in SA, and becoming the worlds nuclear waste dump.

Now we may need the extra 6 or so billion a year it might bring in, but at what cost?
What stigma, what reputation, what image of South Australia, will the world see and know as a result of being the dumping site for the worlds nuclear waste?

Why were we chosen? because of the size of our state, because of the barren landscape, because of our small population. Now think about it, why have federal governments never done anything about the distribution of migrants to Australia, why have they settled the majority in Sydney and Melbourne, and not say the smaller(population) states, like South Australia?
Over in Tasmania their forests are being torn down.
SA is earmarked as the worlds nuclear dumping site.
WA is the worlds resource pit.

......

Globalization.
I either wasn't around or was too young to remember, but Globalization was probably sold to the Australian people(and others around the world) as being a goose that never stops laying golden eggs, as if it will end all our problems and we will all live like kings because of it.
Decades later slowly people are coming to terms with the realization of how we've been screwed over by the globalists.

I heard on the radio the other night, 5AA, the host talking about how manufacturing is todays version of a blacksmith.
Well sorry mate, but if that were true then other first world advanced economies, like Germany, South Korea, the USA, UK, France, wouldn't be pumping out millions of cars a year, among other things. Japan wouldn't be bidding to win our submarine contract would they.

When the next war comes, and it will come, it's mans nature, we will not only be royally screwed, we will have to come up with a new term to describe the severity of how screwed we are. Because without manufacturing, without being able to, without having the infrastructure and capability there, to design and manufacture, we are finished and will be at the mercy of the world powers, all of whom have maintained manufacturing.

But hey, we are getting a nuclear waste dump for a few billion a year!!!! REJOICE WE ARE SAVED!!! :cheers:

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#33 Post by monotonehell » Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:16 am

rev wrote:...Why would you not reprocess whatever nuclear waste you possibly could, so it could be then sold again as fuel for reactors? Why are we also not going to process our uranium before selling it to other countries?
Instead of just selling them raw uranium, we should process it for them, at a cost, and then sell it to them. It would bring in more money, but it would also limit the potential that our uranium can be used for nuclear weapons development.
Particularly since we are supplying India with uranium, and they have an active nuclear weapons program.
Reprocessing of waste is a process that has been attempted since the 1970s. It still isn't a viable process and the economics mean the costs are out of the reach of the market. (That is reprocessed fuel would cost around twice as much as 'new' fuel.)

Processing ore here is not economically viable because the market is already oversupplied.
rev wrote:...I feel as if..this whole inquiry into it, was simply to give a preliminary green light for a nuclear waste dump in SA, with the purpose of winning public support by dangling a carrot of $450 billion(over 70 years) in front of a state that is economically struggling with more bad news coming over the next two-three years on the jobs front.
Bingo. Exactly what commentators said would happen when the commission was established.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3941
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#34 Post by rev » Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:18 am

Wasn't aware it wasn't viable economically or that processing here to begin with wasn't viable, admittedly haven't looked that deep into all this.


The figure annually would be about 6.4 billion.
Now is that set in stone? Is the SA government going to receive 6.4 billion annually?
Or is a lions share going to go to a private operator of the dump facility and SA will get some crumbs out of it?

6.4 billion is a lot of money and could be used to adequately fund hospitals, so instead of having cut backs to services all major hospitals could operate as such.
It could pay for better road and transport infrastructure.
It could pay for better resourced public schools.
It could pay for a better resourced emergency services; police, ambulance, MFS, CFS and SES.

you could increase spending on all of that by a billion, and still have 2 billion left over.
Allocate a billion to payin off state government debt.

Still a billion left.

Lots of community groups could use some help.
Could abolish the ACC, and allocate some of the money to a capital city department that's tasked with things like city beautification. And actually have some consistency throughout.

But at what cost do we take the carrot?

And how big of a slice will Canberra take?

What's security at this facility going to be like?
I'd assume it would be too notch and have the works short of having the SAS guarding it with combat battalions lying in wait nearby, considering the world we live in and the threat environment that exists.
I mean ok we give it the green light but there shouldn't be a situation where terrorists can get anywhere near it to blow something up. Or steal materials from it for a dirty bomb.

IMHO we are getting this dump sooner rather then later. I reckon Weatherill and Turnbull have already shook hands on it.
Mike Rann for example declared an area a protected park or whatever to keep a nuclear dump from being built there.
Weatherill started an inquiry into it and a nuclear industry to sum up the viability of it all.
I hope someone in the right place is asking these questions and more.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#35 Post by monotonehell » Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:37 am

rev wrote:Wasn't aware it wasn't viable economically or that processing here to begin with wasn't viable, admittedly haven't looked that deep into all this.

The figure annually would be about 6.4 billion.
Now is that set in stone? Is the SA government going to receive 6.4 billion annually?
Or is a lions share going to go to a private operator of the dump facility and SA will get some crumbs out of it?
The facility will cost around $51bil NPV to construct over 30 years. It would generate around $6bil a year for the first 30 years $180bil .
The bigger problem is that money cannot be spent. The facility and its 500 odd jobs have to be maintained pretty much forever. In the Royal Commission’s words, “...requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”.
That would require an upfront investment of around $27bil NPV.

So that's $78bil upfront (Not paid by government, but by promissory from entities interested in utilising the dump.)
$6bil a year cash flows (Again this is into the venture, not into the State. Where does the State benefit? Taxes? Levies? This hasn't been specified.)
Using the Commission's discount rate of 4% (See below) over 30 years...

That's a NPV of $32bil (at the end of the 30 years). Or worth around $1bil a year to the venture. What's the tax on $1bil worth to the State?
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#36 Post by claybro » Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:59 pm

these figures I presume are just based on a dump alone? What if it was part of a much bigger industry. Instead of just sending off the raw material, why cant we make it into fuel rods? why cant we build our own nuclear power plant? why cant we repurpose the spent rods on their return? The construction and associated infrastructure alone, roads, hi tech construction etc, surely this would add significantly to the economics. The nuclear industry is well established world wide (despite a few accidents along the way), India and China are building new generation nuclear power plants by the dozens... surely if the economics where as poor as suggested, it would not have survived and apparently thrived so far. There must be something, as one of the worlds leading supplier of this fuel we can do to cash in on this industry.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#37 Post by monotonehell » Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:42 pm

claybro wrote:these figures I presume are just based on a dump alone? What if it was part of a much bigger industry. Instead of just sending off the raw material, why cant we make it into fuel rods? why cant we build our own nuclear power plant? why cant we repurpose the spent rods on their return? The construction and associated infrastructure alone, roads, hi tech construction etc, surely this would add significantly to the economics. The nuclear industry is well established world wide (despite a few accidents along the way), India and China are building new generation nuclear power plants by the dozens... surely if the economics where as poor as suggested, it would not have survived and apparently thrived so far. There must be something, as one of the worlds leading supplier of this fuel we can do to cash in on this industry.
* The commission found that the ore processing market is already oversupplied - there's no money in the market.
* Fuel leasing was identified by the commission as a possible source of funds, but only waste storage after other parties have processed, used and returned it. Spent rod reprocessing uses more energy than it returns, there is no commercial successful reprocessing process, that's why everyone stores spent fuel instead of reprocessing it.
* Construction costs were factored into the Commission's report - the touted jobs figure of 1500 for example is about the construction phase. The operational phase would be around 500 jobs.
* The only places money can be made in this industry are ore extraction and waste storage. Even power production is heavily subsidised around the World.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3941
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#38 Post by rev » Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:22 pm

monotonehell wrote:
rev wrote:Wasn't aware it wasn't viable economically or that processing here to begin with wasn't viable, admittedly haven't looked that deep into all this.

The figure annually would be about 6.4 billion.
Now is that set in stone? Is the SA government going to receive 6.4 billion annually?
Or is a lions share going to go to a private operator of the dump facility and SA will get some crumbs out of it?
The facility will cost around $51bil NPV to construct over 30 years. It would generate around $6bil a year for the first 30 years $180bil .
The bigger problem is that money cannot be spent. The facility and its 500 odd jobs have to be maintained pretty much forever. In the Royal Commission’s words, “...requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”.
That would require an upfront investment of around $27bil NPV.

So that's $78bil upfront (Not paid by government, but by promissory from entities interested in utilising the dump.)
$6bil a year cash flows (Again this is into the venture, not into the State. Where does the State benefit? Taxes? Levies? This hasn't been specified.)
Using the Commission's discount rate of 4% (See below) over 30 years...

That's a NPV of $32bil (at the end of the 30 years). Or worth around $1bil a year to the venture. What's the tax on $1bil worth to the State?
So the South Australian government wouldn't be receiving 6 billion a year, like has basically been presented in the media.

A billion dollars a year you say? To turn part of our unique outback landscape into a radiation hell for hundreds of thousands of years? F*** that.

If we are going to do it, there has to be a massive benefit for the state and the people.
And thinking about it now, 6 billion every year wouldn't cut it.
Because our population will grow, the cost of things will increase, but the "royalties" would stay the same, but our outback would still be used by the world to dump their radioactive waste.

I don't care who pays for the facility. Unless our state sees a massive benefit from it, then you know where they can put their nuclear waste as far as I'm concerned.


Ah, globalization..from destroying our industries, to turning our outback into a nuclear waste dump.
:applause:
Last edited by rev on Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#39 Post by Goodsy » Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:37 pm

rev wrote:
monotonehell wrote:
rev wrote:Wasn't aware it wasn't viable economically or that processing here to begin with wasn't viable, admittedly haven't looked that deep into all this.

The figure annually would be about 6.4 billion.
Now is that set in stone? Is the SA government going to receive 6.4 billion annually?
Or is a lions share going to go to a private operator of the dump facility and SA will get some crumbs out of it?
The facility will cost around $51bil NPV to construct over 30 years. It would generate around $6bil a year for the first 30 years $180bil .
The bigger problem is that money cannot be spent. The facility and its 500 odd jobs have to be maintained pretty much forever. In the Royal Commission’s words, “...requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”.
That would require an upfront investment of around $27bil NPV.

So that's $78bil upfront (Not paid by government, but by promissory from entities interested in utilising the dump.)
$6bil a year cash flows (Again this is into the venture, not into the State. Where does the State benefit? Taxes? Levies? This hasn't been specified.)
Using the Commission's discount rate of 4% (See below) over 30 years...

That's a NPV of $32bil (at the end of the 30 years). Or worth around $1bil a year to the venture. What's the tax on $1bil worth to the State?
So the South Australian government would be receiving 6 billion a year, like has basically been promoted in the media.

A billion dollars a year you say? To turn part of our unique outback landscape into a radiation hell for hundreds of thousands of years? F*** that.

If we are going to do it, there has to be a massive benefit for the state and the people.
And thinking about it now, 6 billion every year wouldn't cut it.
Because our population will grow, the cost of things will increase, but the "royalties" would stay the same, but our outback would still be used by the world to dump their radioactive waste.

I don't care who pays for the facility. Unless our state sees a massive benefit from it, then you know where they can put their nuclear waste as far as I'm concerned.


Ah, globalization..from destroying our industries, to turning our outback into a nuclear waste dump.
:applause:

Radiation hell for hundreds of thousands of years? I'd like to see some sources for that claim...

Meanwhile here's a Swiss nuclear dump, looks borderline apocalyptic if you ask me :roll:

Image

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3941
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#40 Post by rev » Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:49 pm

If you think it's so safe, take a trip there and walk through there without any protective clothing or breathing apparatus.
We can crowd fund right here on S-A to pay for your trip, and you can tell them it's for research/investigative purposes for a possible dump site in SA.

Take lots of photos and videos of you walking through the facility without protective clothing, and then feel free to make all the claims you want that it's safe.

But if it's so safe, why is it buried deep underground?
Why is nuclear waste put into special containers and transported to such facilities under police escort with roads along the route closed?


Yeh, because it's not safe. Because it's radioactive. Because it's a danger to people and the environment.

Oh look, I see a carrot dangling in front of you..keep chasing it.

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#41 Post by Goodsy » Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:02 pm

rev wrote:If you think it's so safe, take a trip there and walk through there without any protective clothing or breathing apparatus.
We can crowd fund right here on S-A to pay for your trip, and you can tell them it's for research/investigative purposes for a possible dump site in SA.

Take lots of photos and videos of you walking through the facility without protective clothing, and then feel free to make all the claims you want that it's safe.

But if it's so safe, why is it buried deep underground?
Why is nuclear waste put into special containers and transported to such facilities under police escort with roads along the route closed?


Yeh, because it's not safe. Because it's radioactive. Because it's a danger to people and the environment.

Oh look, I see a carrot dangling in front of you..keep chasing it.
There's a person in the photo with no protective gear on, and they don't always bury it underground

Image

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3941
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#42 Post by rev » Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:00 pm

GoodSmackUp wrote:
rev wrote:If you think it's so safe, take a trip there and walk through there without any protective clothing or breathing apparatus.
We can crowd fund right here on S-A to pay for your trip, and you can tell them it's for research/investigative purposes for a possible dump site in SA.

Take lots of photos and videos of you walking through the facility without protective clothing, and then feel free to make all the claims you want that it's safe.

But if it's so safe, why is it buried deep underground?
Why is nuclear waste put into special containers and transported to such facilities under police escort with roads along the route closed?


Yeh, because it's not safe. Because it's radioactive. Because it's a danger to people and the environment.

Oh look, I see a carrot dangling in front of you..keep chasing it.
There's a person in the photo with no protective gear on, and they don't always bury it underground

Image

Off you go then, pack your bags and go stand out there with them.
Put your health and future where your mouth is.

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#43 Post by Goodsy » Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:37 pm

rev wrote:
GoodSmackUp wrote:
rev wrote:If you think it's so safe, take a trip there and walk through there without any protective clothing or breathing apparatus.
We can crowd fund right here on S-A to pay for your trip, and you can tell them it's for research/investigative purposes for a possible dump site in SA.

Take lots of photos and videos of you walking through the facility without protective clothing, and then feel free to make all the claims you want that it's safe.

But if it's so safe, why is it buried deep underground?
Why is nuclear waste put into special containers and transported to such facilities under police escort with roads along the route closed?


Yeh, because it's not safe. Because it's radioactive. Because it's a danger to people and the environment.

Oh look, I see a carrot dangling in front of you..keep chasing it.
There's a person in the photo with no protective gear on, and they don't always bury it underground

Image

Off you go then, pack your bags and go stand out there with them.
Put your health and future where your mouth is.
The flight over would give me a higher radiation dose

thecityguy
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:32 am
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#44 Post by thecityguy » Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:56 pm

I swear most people have the image of a giant hole in the ground, with trucks dumping glowing green waste into it

the more you actually read about this stuff the less scary it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3941
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: SA - Nuclear Future

#45 Post by rev » Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:26 am

thecityguy wrote:I swear most people have the image of a giant hole in the ground, with trucks dumping glowing green waste into it

the more you actually read about this stuff the less scary it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Volunteer your property then, in sure with today's technology they can build a very deep multi storey facility deep under your house.

It's safe right?

Nothing could ever go wrong.

How easily some have jumped at the carrot dangled in front of them...and not even any guarantees in writing.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests