South Australia: Making money by solving “waste” problems of others

20040405_drycasksSouth Australia is making progress in its effort to profitably address an issue that has slowed nuclear energy’s growth prospects for more than 40 years.

On May 9th South Australian premier Jay Weatherill released the final version of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission report that had been briefed to him on May 6.

The report is the result of a 14-month process of evidence gathering, hearings, public meetings, report drafting, and comment response that cost the South Australian government a little more than A$7 million ($5.2 million).

The Royal Commission listened to 132 witnesses, many of whom were experts in various aspects of nuclear energy.

A few were professional nuclear energy opponents, including Helen Caldicott, Princeton professor Frank Von Hippel, and the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Ed Lyman.

The panel also addressed more than 170 responses submitted during the comment period following release of the tentative findings in February.

The report’s conclusions and recommended next steps were broken into four major categories: exploration and mining; processing and fabrication; electricity generation; and radioactive waste management, storage and disposal. (See Highlights below.)

The commission found that the world’s nuclear fuel processing and fabrication markets were oversupplied and offered few near term opportunities for new entrants.

It noted that South Australia is home to 25% of the world’s known uranium resources and 80% of Australia’s known uranium, but that market is also oversupplied and underpriced.

It determined that there are no commercially proven nuclear generators that can economically compete in the South Australian electricity market as it is currently structured, even if the federal statutory prohibition on nuclear power in Australia was eliminated.

On a far more positive note, the commission made a strong case for its conclusion that there is a large, profitable and almost completely underserved market in the world for a credible, reliable, bankable supplier of handling, storage and disposal services for used nuclear fuel and intermediate nuclear waste.

The report provided details about the assumptions and calculations that led it to make the following statement on page 99:

“Integrated facilities with capacity to store and dispose of used fuel would be viable. On a number of realistic scenarios, such a facility would be highly profitable.”

A bit later in the report, there are numbers from one of the realistic scenarios that quantify the words “highly profitable.”

They showed how a program could result in total revenue of A$257 billion ($190 billion), with total costs–largely in the form of salaries and wages to South Australian workers–of A$145 billion ($107 billion), leaving more than A$100 billion ($74 billion) in profits.

The commission reported that if half of those profits were invested into a state wealth fund, they could accumulate a total of A$445 billion ($328 billion) before waste deliveries stop.

That calculation was for a notional project that envisions South Australia earning income for 70 years from storing about 25% of the world’s available used fuel and intermediate nuclear waste.

Aside: There would be no real reason to stop there if both hosts and customers were happy with the arrangement. End Aside

Long-time antinuclear campaigner Dave Sweeny (@NukeDaveSweeny) from the Australian Conservation Foundation was quoted in several news stories as having said, “We’ll be increasing our profile, our presence and our concerns….It might include protests, it certainly will include boots on the ground.”

In contrast, The Advertiser published an editorial indicating that many more people are thinking about the opportunity than about joining the opposition.

“There were just two protesters outside Government House on Friday when Rear Admiral Scarce handed over the report. At the height of anti-nuclear sentiment a generation ago, it’s likely thousands would have been marching in the streets.”

Writing for Forbes James Conca said, “This is is a very big deal. And also a very good idea.” He also provided a third party quote worth cribbing.

“Agneta Rising, Director General of the London-based World Nuclear Association, said that the report had ‘fundamentally changed the nature of the global nuclear waste discourse.’”

The federal government, in a statement issued by Josh Frydenberg, the energy and resources minister, expressed support for the commission’s report.

Next Steps

Premier Jay Weatherill indicated that solicitations of interest have been sent out to 25,000 randomly selected South Australians. A pool of 50 from that group will form a citizens’ jury to compile key questions raised by the commission report.

A second group of 350 from the initial group would seek community responses during the summer and report back to the government in September.

By November, the government will decide if it plans to move forward with plans for a storage facility and disposal repository. At that point it will begin the challenging process of finding a willing community host.

“Social consent is fundamental to undertaking any new nuclear project,” the report said. “Social consent requires sufficient public support in South Australia to proceed with legislating, planning and implementing a project. Local community consent is required to host a facility.”

The commission expects that the consent-seeking process might take as long as 10 years.

Even though the commission did not see any near term use of nuclear power in South Australia, it recommended several actions to keep that option available in the future.

It recommended efforts to legislatively remove the prohibition and expert monitoring and reporting of international advances in nuclear technology that might change the economics for proven systems.

Other Report Highlights

The Royal Commission’s report also provided detailed reviews of all other available energy options and explained why it cautions against the assumption that currently rosy views of renewable energy and storage cost reduction might not prove to be accurate.

The report contained a lengthy explanation of the reasons why, in South Australia, climate change concerns are a primary motivation for reconsidering and revising current law. There is a far more than adequate supply of fossil fuels and other energy sources for the small population.

Some nuclear energy professionals actively resist the introduction of climate change as a primary reason why uranium deserves a place in the energy mix, but I hope they don’t waste much time trying to convince the South Australian government that it should find a different reason to become strongly pro-nuclear.

There is a synergistic aspect to South Australia’s willingness to host a multilateral used fuel storage facility and repository that the report does not adequately address.

Perhaps it’s a result of an understandable desire to avoid irrational exuberance.

If South Australia’s used fuel acceptance program is successful and imitated by one or more competitors, the entire nuclear industry may begin to recover from the lethargy that has been imposed by 40 years of constipation—-the situation that some have described as a focus on “the waste issue.”

If South Australians agree to accept the facility and the new enterprise because they’re convinced that the benefits far outweigh the almost imaginary risks, the resulting nuclear power growth should dramatically accelerate the process of working off the oversupply situations described in the report’s skeptical sections on opportunities in fuel cycle activities.


Highlights: Royal Commission Report

Exploration and Mining

Current conclusion: Limited opportunities for expansion in current low price environment.

  • Simplification of state and federal mining to deliver single assessment and approvals process
  • Enhance pre-competitive geophysical data including counter-cyclical investment in exploring new areas
  • Obtain better guarantees for decommissioning and remediation from miners

Processing and Fabrication

Current conclusion: Market is oversupplied with little room for new competition.

  • Remove existing prohibitions on licensing processing & fabrication to enable fuel leasing strategy
  • Promote commercialization of isotopes from cyclotron at SAHMRI

Electricity Generation

Current conclusion: Not economically competitive under today’s market rules.

  • Remove federal prohibitions on nuclear power
  • Develop national energy policy that enables nuclear to participate in low carbon, reliable, lowest possible system cost electricity network
  • Assign experts to keep track of new nuclear systems that may improve economic value of nuclear power

Radioactive Waste Management, Storage, Disposal

Current conclusion: There is a lucrative opportunity to supply desired service with current market void.

  • Vigorously pursue opportunity to establish storage and disposal facilities for intermediate level waste and used nuclear fuel
  • Take immediate steps allowed under existing laws to set stage for community decision process
    Remove constraint that precludes thorough analysis and discussion of opportunity

The above article was first printed in Fuel Cycle Week #661 dated May 12, 2016. It is reprinted here under prior arrangements between author and publishers.

Atomic Show #245 – Building a prosperity program on used nuclear fuel foundation

I applaud reasoned, long term thinking that aims to use science, technology and deep understanding of human wants and needs — aka politics — to set a course for success. You can find one of my favorite current examples of an effort that meets my criteria in the expansive, lightly populated, rather dry state of […]

Read more »

Nuclear Spent Fuel Expert Describes Vermont Yankee Dry Cask Safety

By Guy Page By 2020, the spent fuel left over from all 42 years of Vermont Yankee’s operation is scheduled to be stored in huge steel “dry casks” on pads at the plant site in Vernon. Just how strong and reliable are Vermont Yankee’s “dry cask” spent nuclear fuel containers? Consider the following dry cask […]

Read more »

Contradicting Arjun Makhijani’s claim about bombs from power reactors

On March 3, 2015, Arjun Makhijani testified in front of a committee of the Minnesota Senate. The committee was conducting an investigation on whether or not it should recommend lifting the state’s current moratorium on building new nuclear reactors. Here is the presentation that he prepared and delivered. During his recorded testimony, Makhijani falsely stated […]

Read more »

South Australian senator believes there’s value in “nuclear waste”

South_Australia

South Australian Sen. Sean Edwards sees economic opportunity for his state by taking advantage of other countries’ irrational fear of radioactive materials. He wants to turn what some call “waste” into wealth. He and his staff recognize that there are tens of billions of dollars set aside in government budgets around the world for safe […]

Read more »

Antinuclear activists don’t like continued storage rule

Several of the usual suspects — including Dr. Mark Cooper, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, and Diane Curran — have banded together to assert their opinion that the NRC’s recently issued NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, violates the following provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. In connection with […]

Read more »

Is it really necessary to have a deep geologic repository for used nuclear fuel?

Though I have often received quizzical, almost uncomprehending looks from my type ‘A’ colleagues on submarines and in my other jobs, I’ve often been guided by a simple principal of decision-making – “If it’s too hard, quit.” Please don’t think that means I’m the type of person who can never get anything done or who […]

Read more »

Improvements in spent fuel pool modeling

During a recent discussion thread on Atomic Insights, a frequent commenter cited a 1997 vintage Nuclear Regulatory Commission document as indicating — in his opinion — that there was always a chance that a spent fuel pool could experience an event that might release dangerous amounts of radioactive material. Besides the fact that the report […]

Read more »

Boxer allows Markey 16 minutes to grill NRC Commissioners

Yesterday, I posted a video clip showing Barbara Boxer berating the five NRC commissioners for 36 minutes during a hearing that lasted a little less than 2 hours. She used her gavel and power over the committee to dominate the session. The only mention she made of time was when she turned to the time […]

Read more »

NRC Commissioners support staff analysis on spent fuel storage

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to accept its professional staff’s recommendation to leave its current policy regarding spent fuel storage in place. Despite a large amount of public and political pressure, it will not require licensees to expedite the relocation of used nuclear fuel from carefully engineered and seismically qualified […]

Read more »

Designated law-breaker at DOE still wants budget approved

This interaction between Congressman Shimkus and Secretary Moniz took place during a the Energy and Commerce Committee FY2015 DOE budget hearing on April 3, 2014. It’s too bad that hearings like this have strict time limits imposed on the questioners. There is a good reason why I would be exceedingly reluctant to accept any kind […]

Read more »