Sensational-Adelaide.com

LOL Crawf surely you're taking the piss now.

Did she get her sign back?

peas_and_corn wrote:Did she get her sign back?

No she made a new one and showed up at the front of SAHMRI the other day.(not kidding either)

monotonehell wrote: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?

Hey Mono, help me here. I'm going to be a cheapskate and only invest $1 billion (in year 1 only) towards two things - see below. All other income coming to SA across the 30 year projected income period will be spent on lamingtons, cocktails and fireworks.

So in year 1 we invest:
1) $500m - to cover the future risk of the storage facility needing serious work (even potentially building a 2nd storage facility in full and relocating all waste). Cannot be touched exception for work on the facility itself.
2) $500m - as an SA future fund (only 50% of the annual interest can be removed. Capital and other 50% interest remains in the fund perpetually)

Let's assume 2.5% growth (after inflation, tax, blah) for both funds, with the future fund having half (1.25%) of the interest reinvested.

How much (in today's terms) would be in these kitty's (in 50 year increments) at year 50, 100, 150, through to say 5000 years out.

Given the plant will cost ~$50b to build, we probably need 150% of that (in today's terms) should replacement be required.

Hop all that makes sense. I'm not so good at the accountancy side of things.

Wayno wrote:

monotonehell wrote: 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 in year 1 we invest:
1) $500m - to cover the future risk of the storage facility needing serious work (even potentially building a 2nd storage facility in full and relocating all waste). Cannot be touched exception for work on the facility itself.

I don't think you need to budget for that as that's what the $27bil NPV investment is for.

Wayno wrote:Hey Mono, help me here. I'm going to be a cheapskate and only invest $1 billion (in year 1 only) towards two things - see below. All other income coming to SA across the 30 year projected income period will be spent on lamingtons, cocktails and fireworks.

So in year 1 we invest:
1) $500m - to cover the future risk of the storage facility needing serious work (even potentially building a 2nd storage facility in full and relocating all waste). Cannot be touched exception for work on the facility itself.
2) $500m - as an SA future fund (only 50% of the annual interest can be removed. Capital and other 50% interest remains in the fund perpetually)
Let's assume 2.5% growth (after inflation, tax, blah) for both funds, with the future fund having half (1.25%) of the interest reinvested.

How much (in today's terms) would be in these kitty's (in 50 year increments) at year 50, 100, 150, through to say 5000 years out.

Given the plant will cost ~$50b to build, we probably need 150% of that (in today's terms) should replacement be required.

I'm too lazy to do a whole table, but half a billion invested now, at 2.5% growth, in 50 years' time would be like having $1.7bil now. And in 100 years' time would be like having $6bil now - ceteris paribus.

Here knock yourself out... http://www.investopedia.com/calculator/fvcal.aspx

It is all interesting stuff thinking about how to financially manage the risk. Reinforces to me though that no-one knows what may happen pretty much beyond 100 years - in engineering, designing for that length of life is highly unusual with your every-day infrastructure - but designing for 100,000yrs - anyone that says the engineering is "guaranteed" is also betting on NSW Grey-hound racing!
Same goes for financial market forecasts - yes, they may apply conservative numbers (4% in report, you two using 2.5% etc) - but again, modern financial markets are still only babies, and 99 years of stellar growth could be annihilated in one year with some sort of global economic disaster (theoretically - just as the positives are theoretical too).

Now, typically I am a positive, glass-half-full type - but that is only within my immediate horizon (say 10-20 years, ie a generation) - all bets are off for me once you go beyond that and anything over 100years is crystal ball stuff. The transport element doesn't really concern me - that can be engineered and is short term so build in 4 or 5 levels of contingency and bingo, the stuff arrives - but keeping it contained for 100,000 years- jury still out on that one!

zippySA wrote:It is all interesting stuff thinking about how to financially manage the risk. Reinforces to me though that no-one knows what may happen pretty much beyond 100 years - in engineering, designing for that length of life is highly unusual with your every-day infrastructure - but designing for 100,000yrs - anyone that says the engineering is "guaranteed" is also betting on NSW Grey-hound racing!
Same goes for financial market forecasts - yes, they may apply conservative numbers (4% in report, you two using 2.5% etc) - but again, modern financial markets are still only babies, and 99 years of stellar growth could be annihilated in one year with some sort of global economic disaster (theoretically - just as the positives are theoretical too).

Now, typically I am a positive, glass-half-full type - but that is only within my immediate horizon (say 10-20 years, ie a generation) - all bets are off for me once you go beyond that and anything over 100years is crystal ball stuff. The transport element doesn't really concern me - that can be engineered and is short term so build in 4 or 5 levels of contingency and bingo, the stuff arrives - but keeping it contained for 100,000 years- jury still out on that one!

There's no 100,000 year storage, there won't even be 200 year storage. Nuclear waste isn't some dead battery that gets tossed aside like the ash from a coal plant. It's still valuable after it's been used in power production.

And... We're back

SA Government indicates support for nuclear waste dump as communities remain split about proposal

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-23/s ... ns/9262948

Now that (most of) the functions of the Royal Adelaide Hospital have moved from the East to the West end of North Terrace, does anyone know how much and where the radioactive waste stored at the Old site is now? I wonder what security arrangements are in place at an otherwise almost-deserted site.

How much storage space has been provided at the new site, and what assumptions have been made about establishment of a secure off-site storage facility and the ability to transport it?

Similar questions would apply to the closed Repat Hospital, if there was any nuclear medicine done there.

I think the waste from the ORAH was transferred to the NRAH a while back from what I can remember.

Norman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:41 am

I think the waste from the ORAH was transferred to the NRAH a while back from what I can remember.

How dumb is that! ...and no public outcry from The Advertiser or anyone else.

SBD wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:58 pm

Norman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:41 am

I think the waste from the ORAH was transferred to the NRAH a while back from what I can remember.

How dumb is that! ...and no public outcry from The Advertiser or anyone else.

Because it's bog standard hospital waste, they couldn't use glowing green barrels of radioactive liquid to drive their point home

Goodsy wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:05 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:58 pm

Norman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:41 am

I think the waste from the ORAH was transferred to the NRAH a while back from what I can remember.

How dumb is that! ...and no public outcry from The Advertiser or anyone else.

Because it's bog standard hospital waste, they couldn't use glowing green barrels of radioactive liquid to drive their point home

I still think it's dumb to move it to another temporary store in the CBD. If it had to be packed and loaded on trucks, take it out of the CBD somewhere. I don't know if the state has repositories at Wingfield or Dublin or somewhere. The Commonwealth has some at Edinburgh I think.