Nuclear Street.

← News archive

Study Evidences Big Profits For Spent Fuel Facility In South Australia

Source:

Archived news summary. This item reflects its original publication date. Follow the source link below for the publisher’s full article.

A South Australia government royal commission study into economic opportunities provided by nuclear energy recommended the state forgo nuclear power for its residents, but claimed that building a nuclear waste repository to serve the international community could be enormously profitable.

The 12-month study that included evidence gathered from 128 participants, was lead by former South Australia governor Kevin Scarce. It concluded that a facility built to handle spent fuel would bring in $5 billion in revenue per year for the first 30 years of operation.

The study deemed the repository “highly profitable,” with total revenue over 120 years reaching $257 billion compared to costs of $145 billion. While building a power plant was deemed unwise due to “flat future demand” for electricity in South Australia, a repository project would create about 1,500 jobs at the start, which would rise to about 4,500 jobs at the height of the facility's construction phase, which could last for 25 years.

The study recommended the project, which would have to be vetted by public process, be government-owned. It also recommended a sovereign wealth fund be established to help pay for the project.

Environment groups decried the report, but South Australia's Premier Jay Weatherill took a more measured stance. He said the study revealed “exciting possibilities,” but that the government would “abide by whatever the (public) process throws up.”

What the industry had to offer, the study found, was more than 390,000 metric tons of spent rods and nuclear waste. In addition, the study said the industry is growing in the vicinity of Australia with China leading the way.

The Age quoted Australia's Federal Minister for Resources and Energy Josh Frydenberg as saying that a repository would “require significant legislative and regulatory change.” Dave Sweeney, noted as a “campaigner” for the Australian Conservation Foundation, called the idea of a major nuclear waste facility “desperate, dangerous and in direct conflict with Australia's national interest.”


Questions about this archived item? Contact Nuclear Street.