Sensational-Adelaide.com

rev wrote:...the cost of things will increase...

To be fair, that's why I did an, admittedly back of a napkin, Net Present Value (NPV) calculation. I used the Commission's 4% discount rate. This gives you any future payment/cost value at today's value. Although some dispute using the 4% rate as you can't do an NPV calculation over a virtually infinite number of years.

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

You can't really demonise everything under the banner of globalisation. Sure it's convenient for shallow thinkers, but globalisation has brought both good and bad things. And it's not a recent phenomenon. The process started around the 1700s when the big colonial powers started invading the rest of the World (England, Spain, Portugal, Whatever Germany was called back then, The Dutch, The French... who am I forgetting?).

I think you need to be a bit more specific about where you are laying blame for the things you are decrying, rather than try to stick it all under one ultimately unhelpful banner.

GoodSmackUp wrote: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

So what happens if ZWILAG goes out of business, or the government stops paying them? (Okay maybe Switzerland is a bad example here, all that NAZI gold lol) Do note however that the Swiss facilities are temporary measures until they work out how to safely store the waste geologically. Dry storage requires continual observation and maintenance.

Dry storage facilities in the US keep having unexplained leaks. The storage situation in the US is in a bad situation. On site storage (uncapped rod pools) at maximum capacity - with caesium fire risk highlighted in several reports there. Dry storage is often kept open air near salty environments which means the 100 year containers are set to fail within 30 years. The long term storage facility in Yucca Mountain was cancelled and people are saying it will be decades before a solution is built.

The point being the only long term solutions are the ones being excavated in (I want to say...) Finland and Sweden (don't quote me on that lol) all current solutions are short term and the technology used is unsafe and labour intensive. Read that as "costs money for a long time." This is not something commercial interests wants to take on due to the near infinite-term costs. This is not something a commercial operator should be allowed to take on because they invariably turn to cost cutting. The only commercial interest in any of this is the quick buck of building and running away with the initial profits kind.

Barndioota station in SA earmarked as site of waste facility
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-29/n ... on/7369346

GoodSmackUp wrote:Barndioota station in SA earmarked as site of waste facility
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-29/n ... on/7369346

a few hundred kilometers north west of Quorn, if anyone was wondering... Like I was

So when can we start the advertising campaign for tourists to come see our nuclear illuminated flinders rangers? I'm guessing the Greens will be all over this soon

Why doesn't anywhere else in the world volunteer to be a dumping ground or another state in Australia? Just a desperate grab for short term cash by the state government as we're fast on our way to becoming another detroit.

Im there wrote:Why doesn't anywhere else in the world volunteer to be a dumping ground or another state in Australia?

Just a desperate grab for short term cash by the state government as we're fast on our way to becoming another detroit.

Im there, please contribute thoughtful commentary to this forum.

You started ok with a valid question and then finished with typical AdelaideNow dribble. Please don't dump such into this forum.

Yes we're looking for revenue. We're also an incredibly huge land masse with stable geology.

That being said I'm also concerned about the inverted 'benefit-cost' model where the benefit (cash) comes early and the cost (long term storage) lingers for 1000s of years.

Keenly awaiting the review to be made public.

The Barndioota proposal is for storage of low/medium nuclear waste generated in Australia by Australians. This waste comes from the Lucas Heights Nuclear Research facility near Sydney, and from Australian hospitals where any form of nuclear medicine is practised ( in other words any major Australian hospital)
At the moment current practice dictates that medical waste is stored at a local level (I think this means it basically stays in the hospital or Lucas Heights)
The issue of storing higher grade nuclear waste generated outside Australia is entirely a different subject matter and the the two should not be confused.

PeFe wrote:The Barndioota proposal is for storage of low/medium nuclear waste generated in Australia by Australians. This waste comes from the Lucas Heights Nuclear Research facility near Sydney, and from Australian hospitals where any form of nuclear medicine is practised ( in other words any major Australian hospital)
At the moment current practice dictates that medical waste is stored at a local level (I think this means it basically stays in the hospital or Lucas Heights)
The issue of storing higher grade nuclear waste generated outside Australia is entirely a different subject matter and the the two should not be confused.

While true, the establishment of the first can bolster the argument to expand to the other.

At the end of the day, I think it's very difficult for the cost-benefit equation for this nuclear future (which has already been narrowed down to only the worst bit for SA, which is storing waste) to be acceptable to South Australians.

If the Federal Govt would like to guarantee (and I mean, of the irrevocable ironclad legislated sort) that SA will receive a minimum *public* benefit - like several billion a year paid directly in a grant to the government of SA - indexed for inflation and for at least 50 years - then and only then could I see how it works. The politics of this will of course be atrocious given we are already under attack (eg the submarine contract is apparently $50bn welfare for SA, despite that being the cost over decades, involving (particularly) huge spending in WA too and drawing on lots of foreign and other (non SA) Australian companies).

One of the biggest and best hopes for our long term economic survival remains industries associated with agriculture - from basic crops right up to wine manufacturing and processed high value foods. Every single year we currently export *billions* of dollars of this stuff. I'm not saying being a nuclear dump will poison the ground but it won't help with the marketing particularly when foreign markets have the luxury of comparing our stuff with similar exports from a dozen other countries.

No-one wants trucks or trains passing through their suburbs with imported nuclear waste, no-one wants to consider the costs of an accident/terrorism (and Fukushima shows that the 'unexpected' can happen even with the best systems in place), there really aren't many ongoing jobs involved, the benefits will largely accrue to private (probably foreign owned or controlled, since they will have the expertise) firms and we get a massive blot on our reputation. This state already absorbed nuclear testing (lest we forget) and I think we've done enough on that front.

And yes, sure, there's nuclear material all over the place (low level etc from medical). I don't think other countries want to pay us the 'bazillions of dollars' AdelaideNow claims just to take their low level waste though.

I don't think knowingly - but you raise a good point in this debate that I had forgotten and doesn't get spoken about much - the fact that we have had atomic explosions released in our State and there are not many places on this planet that share this rather unsavoury distinction. And yet, we continue now to market and leverage our clean, green image for produce and lifestyle and seemingly do it rather well.

Not advocating either way - but does a fully engineered dump in SA truly mean we lose our status as clean and green (is it really only ourselves that believe we have this much touted status?).

All I am alluding to, is this debate needs to be ramped up with more detail, more meaningful information for the public to be able to determine if we believe the proposals, believe we can manage it successfully, and what are the benefits versus risks in a way that general population can understand. Extreme views at either end of the divide will not assist in reaching a positive decision for or against.

phenom wrote:At the end of the day, I think it's very difficult for the cost-benefit equation for this nuclear future (which has already been narrowed down to only the worst bit for SA, which is storing waste) to be acceptable to South Australians.

If the Federal Govt would like to guarantee (and I mean, of the irrevocable ironclad legislated sort) that SA will receive a minimum *public* benefit - like several billion a year paid directly in a grant to the government of SA - indexed for inflation and for at least 50 years - then and only then could I see how it works. The politics of this will of course be atrocious given we are already under attack (eg the submarine contract is apparently $50bn welfare for SA, despite that being the cost over decades, involving (particularly) huge spending in WA too and drawing on lots of foreign and other (non SA) Australian companies).

One of the biggest and best hopes for our long term economic survival remains industries associated with agriculture - from basic crops right up to wine manufacturing and processed high value foods. Every single year we currently export *billions* of dollars of this stuff. I'm not saying being a nuclear dump will poison the ground but it won't help with the marketing particularly when foreign markets have the luxury of comparing our stuff with similar exports from a dozen other countries.

No-one wants trucks or trains passing through their suburbs with imported nuclear waste, no-one wants to consider the costs of an accident/terrorism (and Fukushima shows that the 'unexpected' can happen even with the best systems in place), there really aren't many ongoing jobs involved, the benefits will largely accrue to private (probably foreign owned or controlled, since they will have the expertise) firms and we get a massive blot on our reputation. This state already absorbed nuclear testing (lest we forget) and I think we've done enough on that front.

And yes, sure, there's nuclear material all over the place (low level etc from medical). I don't think other countries want to pay us the 'bazillions of dollars' AdelaideNow claims just to take their low level waste though.

Get out of town! The best systems were in place in Fukushima?
It's widely known they took shortcuts and covered up problems and their shortcuts.
Even after the quake and tsunami, they were still taking short cuts and covering up their dodgy practices.
Fukushima is as bad as it is, not because of a tsunami, but because of mismanagement and incompetence by the people in charge over there.

rev wrote:Fukushima is as bad as it is, not because of a tsunami, but because of mismanagement and incompetence by the people in charge over there.

Which is one of the main reasons why we can't have nice things like nuclear reactors and fuel dumps - corporations cannot be trusted to do the right thing, especially long term after the profits have disappeared.

Which is why(among other reasons) I think governments should re-nationalize(or states taking back control) our utilities.

Violent protest outside of Government House today, quite daunting.

https://www.facebook.com/7NewsAdelaide/ ... 898301930/

"ARE THEY LISTENNG"

crawf wrote:Violent protest outside of Government House today, quite daunting.

https://www.facebook.com/7NewsAdelaide/ ... 898301930/

"ARE THEY LISTENNG"

You should write for the advertiser...

all I saw was 2 little old NIMBY's trying to get their way,